Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BOLTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday next, at Seven o'Clock.

BILL PRESENTED

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under the Marriages Validity (Provisional Orders) Acts, 1905 and 1924," presented by Mr. Ede; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABLED PERSONS (REGISTRATION)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Minister of Labour why he requires a person who is in receipt of a disability pension from the Admiralty to be medically examined by a Ministry of Health Board before registration as a disabled person; and if he will take steps to eliminate this procedure.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Registration under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, is open only to those whose disability causes a substantial handicap in getting or keeping employment. The receipt of a war disability pension does not necessarily show that there is a substantial employment handicap. It is therefore necessary in some cases to obtain a medical assessment directed to this specific point. For this reason the answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is it not a fact that there is no co-operation at all between the Departments in this matter and that all people who are in receipt of a disability pension, however disabled they may be, are automatically required to be examined by the Ministry of Health doctors? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that this is not so?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid the hon. Member is misinformed; there is the most complete co-operation. Every man who applies to be registered as a disabled person can put in his pension documents as evidence and only where the handicap is not clearly visible is he referred to a tribunal.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: If I send particulars of a case which denies his statement, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look into it?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Most certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEACHERS' PENSIONS (REGULATIONS)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Education what provision is made in his regulations for early rectification of a mistaken option by a teacher in favour of one of the alternative pensions schemes.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the National Insurance (Modification of Teachers' Pensions) Regulations. The answer is "None, Sir."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that, where a perfectly genuine error is made by a teacher and is ascertained within the matter of weeks, his Department decline to allow rectification in any circumstances?

Mr. Tomlinson: The decision was taken that this option should be irrevocable after a period of some five months in which all the circumstances were explained and it was pretty generally known. Each teacher was acquainted with the circumstances and it would be impossible to have people flitting in and out.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Minister aware that in fact mistakes have been made and that the documents concerned are very complicated? What is the objection to allowing rectification, at any rate for the first few months of the scheme?

Mr. Tomlinson: The objection is the difficulty in connection with the administrative side of this work if such a practice were allowed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Newsprint

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an estimate of what loss would be involved if he released for current use at the present market price the Government stock of pulp for newsprint manufacture.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): As I informed the hon. Member in reply to a Question on 24th February, pulp is not purchased specifically for newsprint but for the production of all descriptions of paper in which such pulp is used.

Mr. Hurd: Would not the President of the Board of Trade feel it right to answer the Question on the Order Paper and, if I may put a supplementary question, will he tell me if it is a fact that the Newsprint Supply Company have offered to take over the Government's liability for this bulk purchase of pulp, if the Government get out of this business altogether?

Mr. Wilson: I have had many discussions with the Newsprint Supply Company and I have suggested to them that they might care in their own selling prices to anticipate the reduction which it is confidently expected the Government will be making in the near future.

Mr. Hurd: When will the Government get out of this business altogether, so that a true market price can rule?

Mr. Wilson: Not yet.

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that the large stock of mechanical pulp now held in store on Government account will not deteriorate in condition.

Mr. H. Wilson: There should be no danger of deterioration provided the stocks are used by the mills in the order of receipt.

Mr. Hurd: Is it not a fact that fungus is already growing on some of these stocks of print and mechanical pulp, and that that is causing a break in the flow of production into newspaper offices at the present time?

Mr. Wilson: As the hon. Member knows, the rate of consumption of newsprint has been increased in the last few days. That will help to reduce stocks somewhat, and, as I have said, if they are used in proper order there is no danger of deterioration.

Dominions and Colonies (Agreements)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the President of the Board of Trade what reciprocal arrangements for the long-term purchase of British manufactured goods are made with the Dominions and Colonies with whom we have entered into agreements for guaranteed purchase of food and raw materials on a long-term basis under bulk-buying arrangements.

Mr. H. Wilson: None, Sir.

Mr. Evans: Does it not seem very undesirable that we should give concessions on the question of long-term purchase and get nothing in return in the way of guarantees?

Mr. Wilson: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong to suggest that we get nothing in return as a result of long-term purchase arrangements within the Commonwealth, because that is of great benefit. But it is not necessary in the case of those countries, as it is in the case of many others, in the course of bilateral negotiations to use those discussions to remove or relax import restrictions upon British goods wherever we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE ORGANISATION

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why no directions or guidance as to their duties under the Civil Defence Act, 1948, have yet been issued to local authorities; and whether directions or guidance will be issued in the near future.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): Since the passing of the Civil Defence Act, Departments concerned have, in accordance with undertakings given by Minis-


ters, been discussing with representatives of the local authorities the general arrangements for reconstituting a Civil Defence organisation. These have made good progress, and my right hon. Friend hopes to lay appropriate regulations before Parliament at an early date.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Were not such instructions issued some time ago for the Armed Forces, with which Civil Defence will have to co-operate? Is it not of great importance that Civil Defence should be prepared to deal with emergencies, and should not instructions be hastened and issued accordingly?

Mr. Younger: I agree that it is important that we should get out instructions as quickly as possible. My right hon. Friend hopes that the first regulations will be before Parliament before the end of next month.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE PAY (REPORT)

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received the Oaksey Committee report on conditions of pay in the Police Force.

Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir. The first part of the Committee's report dealing with pay, allowances and pensions has now been published as a Command paper.

Commander Noble: In view of the long time that has been taken to produce this report, could the Under-Secretary say how long his Department will take to go into it, and when this House may have an opportunity to discuss it?

Mr. Younger: I am afraid that I cannot state any actual date. Obviously it has to be considered by a number of interested bodies as well as by the Department. There will be no unnecessary delay.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: As the police force in many of our towns is under-manned and well below establishment, will my hon. Friend push on as rapidly as possible with a decision about implementing these recommendations?

Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will that be done without waiting for the remainder of the recommendations?

Mr. Younger: Yes, I. think that action can be taken on this part of the report.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to consider the advisability of consulting the Police Federation again before the report is implemented?

Mr. Younger: All the police bodies will be considering this report within the next few days or weeks.

Mr. W. J. Brown: In view of the fact that this Committee has been at work since last December, cannot the Under-Secretary give us some estimate as to when the Government will make up their minds on this matter and announce their decision to the House?

Mr. Younger: I have already said that I cannot give a date.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Do I understand from the reply of the Under-Secretary that he is proposing to take action to implement a report before the matter has been discussed by Parliament?

Mr. Younger: Certainly not. I said nothing of the kind.

Captain Crookshank: Oh, yes, the Under-Secretary did.

Mr. Younger: I said nothing of the kind. I suppose the hon. Gentleman was referring to the question in which I was asked, if I understood it rightly, whether it would be necessary to await the second part of the report before anything could be done on the first part, which has been published. That was the question which I intended to answer, and if it was another question which was put to me, that is a different matter. That is how I understood the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HORSLEY HALL SCHOOL

Mr. Baker White: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, previous to recent proceedings, the Horsley Hall School was recognised by juvenile courts as a condition of residence school under probation orders.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend knows of only one occasion on which a juvenile court has made it a condition of a probation order that the probationer should reside at Horsley Hall School. The condition, which was imposed in August, 1947, on medical advice, has since been deleted and the boy has left the school.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: What care is taken to see that such peculiar action is not taken in future?

Mr. Younger: There may have been a misunderstanding on this occasion; it is the only one of which we know. There are arrangements under a probation order for ensuring that persons shall not be required to reside at an institution unless it is within certain categories.

Oral Answers to Questions — TYPHOID (RESEARCH WORKER'S DEATH)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the payment of compensation to the parents of Edward Gill, of Stone Road, Stafford, who died from typhoid fever as a result of his work in a bacteriological laboratory in Stafford at the time of the typhoid outbreak in Shropshire.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): While I deeply sympathise with the parents I am advised that I am not liable for such a payment. But a grant has been made ex gratia to Mr. Gill's father, which he has accepted in full and final settlement.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that the National Insurance officer has given a decision that the tragic death of Edward Gill resulted from his employment, and does he not think that the Medical Research Council, as the employers of Edward Gill, should have accepted some responsibility? Is he further aware that their more generous offer has only been made since this Question was raised?

Mr. Bevan: The last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question reveals the value of the House of Commons itself. In reply to the first part, I think it is quite clear that it is admitted that the boy contracted typhoid in the service of the Medical Research Council. That is the reason why, in consultation with the Treasury Solicitors, an ex gratia grant of £132 was made to the father.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

School Clinics (Medicines)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, when children are given prescriptions by a doctor at a

school clinic, their parents have to pay the chemist for the medicines supplied; and, as this is contrary to the principle of the Health Service, if he will take steps to amend the regulations so as to provide that no charge shall be made.

Mr. Bevan: Any medicines supplied at these clinics are provided free but if a school medical officer thinks a pupil requires a prescription he would no doubt refer him to his National Health Service doctor, who could prescribe for free supply under the service.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the case I sent him a prescription was given by the school doctor, and is it not rather a cumbersome proceeding for one doctor to have to send a child to another already overworked doctor?

Mr. Bevan: No. The school medical service is grant-aided and it would be extremely difficult to operate the National Health Service in respect of this matter through the grant-aided service of the schools. It is also exceedingly undesirable for two doctors to have charge of one patient.

Mr. Lipson: Is the Minister aware that these children are sent to the school clinics by the authority, and surely the doctors there are fully qualified? Is it not advisable that they should be given the same right as any other doctor to give a prescription?

Mr. Bevan: The whole difficulty is to operate the National Health Service through the grant-aided medical service. Very little difficulty need be experienced by a person going to his own family doctor. My hon. Friend knows that it is the intention eventually to assimilate the therapeutical side of the school medical service into the National Health Service because of these difficulties.

Spectacles

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that some opticians are advising applicants for spectacles under the National Health Service that it will be months before they can receive them, whereas if they pay for them they can be supplied with glasses in a few weeks; and whether this practice conforms to his regulations.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) on 17th February. I shall be glad to have inquiries made into any specific cases which are brought to my notice.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has evidence that this is becoming a widespread practice, and is he satisfied that there is adequate local machinery for getting this put straight?

Mr. Bevan: I do not think it is becoming a more extended practice than it was before; I believe that it is getting less. There are, I believe, some opticians who are doing this, and I think it is highly undesirable that it should be done.

Hospital Administration

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Minister of Health why he is unable to ascertain how many persons are now in receipt of payment for jobs in hospitals which were done voluntarily prior to 5th July, 1948.

Mr. Bevan: I could no doubt ascertain the numbers, but do not consider it of sufficient importance to justify asking for a special return from 2,835 hospitals when they are so fully occupied otherwise.

Mr. Marlowe: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a matter of administration which he could ascertain from those responsible for the administration without interfering with the medical service which has to be given in these hospitals? Is not it right that Parliament, which votes this money, should ensure that there is no unnecessary extravagance?

Mr. Bevan: The administration of the hospital is responsible for providing the medical services of the hospital. If the administration have additional work to do they cannot do their medical administration as they should—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] As I have had interpolations of "nonsense" I would point out that it is from the other side of the House that we are continually having reproaches about administrators having to fill up too many forms, and there being too much paper work. Further, it would be necessary to investigate how every voluntary

hospital in Great Britain did its work before and compare that with how it is doing its work now in order to get this information.

Mr. Nicholson: Would not it be in the public interest if sample inquiries could be made, not necessarily covering all the hospitals, to find out the dimensions of this problem? Surely the Minister realises that his scheme stands or falls by the economical and efficient way in which it is enabled to spend the nation's money?

Mr. Bevan: It is, as hon. Members know, a very remarkable thing today that the whole of the Health Scheme is administered by 10,000 to 11,000 voluntary persons who are not paid anything at all; and that is a very remarkable tribute to the voluntary principle. We cannot call to account officials employed in an official capacity unless they are paid a salary.

Mr. Marlowe: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that without information of this kind, his denials of extravagance in the administration of this service are worthless?

Mr. Bevan: And without information of this kind accusations of extravagance are nonsense.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGED PEOPLE (WELFARE SERVICE)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Health how far, in view of the number of old people living alone in unsatisfactory circumstances, his regulations, made under the National Assistance Act, 1948, enable local authorities to provide a welfare service for them in their own homes.

Mr. Bevan: I do not fully appreciate what kind of welfare service my hon. Friend has in mind, but the health visiting, home nursing and domestic help services of local authorities under the National Health Service Act are available to old people living in their own homes, and the National Assistance Act empowers local authorities to contribute to voluntary organisations which provide recreation or meals for old people. A local authority who are a civic restaurants authority can include a mobile meals service in their civic restaurants service which is, of course, of particular help to old people.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that surveys made in certain industrial areas have shown that there are hundreds of old people living alone who require visiting, and who require someone to keep in touch with them, and perhaps do their shopping, and so on? It would appear that this power is not in the hands of local authorities under the National Assistance Act, and they would welcome being able to do that. Would he have any objection to their undertaking this service as welfare authorities under the National Assistance Act?

Mr. Bevan: That is another matter, and I will certainly look into it. I fully appreciate the fact that there are very large numbers of old people who are now living in their own homes, which fortunately they are now able to do in much larger numbers. I will certainly look into the possibility of extending the service.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Assistance Board will not co-operate with local authorities in giving them information? Where they have to give a supplementary grant to assist old people they refuse to give information to the local authority so that the welfare authority can follow up these cases and see if these people need any further assistance.

Mr. Bevan: I cannot at this stage agree that the National Asssistance Board is not going to help, but I certainly will inquire to see what co-ordination can be brought about.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNDEVELOPED LAND (HOUSING AUTHORITIES)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health why he requires local authorities in possession of undeveloped land to obtain planning consent under Circular No. 61 of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning where planning consent had already been obtained under the old procedure prior to the issue of the circular.

Mr. Bevan: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular which I issued on 11th April to housing authorities on this question.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister state whether he is prepared to waive this requirement where it can be shown that the council will experience delay in developing its housing scheme when it has already obtained planning consent to develop under the old procedure?

Mr. Bevan: If my hon. Friend will examine the circular which I am sending to him I think he will find that we are simplifying the procedure, because of the matters raised by him.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health whether in dealing with applications for the speedy acquisition of land from Rural District Councils, it is his policy to refuse authorisation under Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, where the local authority already possesses undeveloped land in some part of its district.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. My decision whether to issue such an authorisation depends on the circumstances of each individual case.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSION ON GAMBLING

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if he will increase the number of persons who have agreed to serve on the Royal Commission on Gambling, so as to include a representative of Tattersalls and/or the National Greyhound Racing Society.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the present members of the Royal Commission have sufficient practical experience, and is he aware that, apart from one member of the Royal Commission, the rest of the members have not the remotest idea, by virtue of the constitution of this Commission and their qualifications, of how to ask any questions on this matter, because they would not understand it?

Mr. Morrison: I think that generally the House would agree that this is a matter upon which objective impartiality is desirable rather than having people who are so expert that it might be difficult for them to free their minds


from their expertness. No doubt the assistance my hon. Friend contemplates could be made available to the Royal Commission by means of people like those about whom he is concerned giving evidence in the usual way.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Prime Minister if he will now announce the names of the Members of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. As my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, informed the House on Thursday, 20th January, 1949, the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment will be Sir Ernest Gowers, G.B.E., K.C.B. The King has now been pleased to approve the appointment of the following members of the Commission:

Mrs. Elizabeth Dorothea Cole Cameron, C.B.E. (As a writer, known as Elizabeth Bowen),
Mr. Norman Roy Fox-Andrews, K.C.,
Miss Florence Hancock, C.B.E.,
Mr. William Jones, C.B.E.,
Mr. Horace Macdonald,
Mr. John Mann, C.B.E., J.P.,
Sir Alexander Maxwell, G.C.B., K.B.E.,
Professor George Allison Montgomery, K.C.,
Earl Peel,
Professor Leon Radzinowicz and
Dr. Eliot Slater.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Commission embodies sufficient practical experience? Has any of these ladies and gentlemen ever served a commuted death sentence?

Mr. Morrison: Not so far as I know, Sir.

Mr. Wilson Harris: But the right hon. Gentleman will consider the idea?

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY

Overfishing

Sir David Robertson: asked the Minister of Agriculture what immediate

action he is taking to protect the North Sea and other near water fishing grounds in view of their depletion.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): An Order is already in force prohibiting the landing and selling of undersized fish as recommended by the Overfishing Convention of 1946. It is hoped shortly to lay before Parliament a further Order raising the minimum size of mesh of nets which may be used in the North Sea and waters adjacent to the British Isles.

Sir D. Robertson: While I appreciate these measures, has not the time come for an international conference at Ministerial level, because of the importance of this question? There is hardly a trawler fishing in the North Sea today which is paying its way.

Mr. Williams: I could not agree more with the hon. Member about the urgent necessity of giving effect to the Order referred to, and we are in fact at this moment considering whether or not the six nations who have ratified the Order should bring it into operation at once.

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Agriculture when the new order to give effect to the recommendations of the Overfishing Convention, held in London in 1946, with reference to the alteration in the minimum sizes of the mesh of nets, will be introduced; and from what date the new mesh sizes are to become effective.

Mr. T. Williams: It is hoped shortly to lay an Order before Parliament fixing new sizes for nets. The date on which they will come into operation will be fixed having regard to the position of fishermen and manufacturers so as to enable the fullest use to be made of existing nets.

Mr. Evans: Before the right hon. Gentleman does that, will he assure himself that the other signatories to the Convention will implement regulations which are equivalent to the restrictions which we propose to put upon our own fishermen?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir. As I said in reply to a previous Question, the five other signatories are being consulted as to the appropriate date for bringing the Order into effect.

Mr. Maclay: Does that reply mean that the British Order will not be applied until all the other nations have agreed to come in on the same date?

Mr. Williams: It will not apply until those who have already ratified the Convention have agreed on the same date.

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Agriculture when the next meeting of the Standard Advisory Committee set up at the Overfishing Convention, 1946, will take place.

Mr. T. Williams: The Standing Advisory Committee was set up for a specific purpose and its report was issued in Command Paper 7387. It contained a recommendation that the Committee should become the permanent Commission provided for by Article 12 of the Overfishing Convention, 1946. The Convention is not yet in force as six Governments have not yet ratified it. I am, however, considering the desirability of inviting Governments, which have already ratified, to agree to the Convention being brought into force so that the permanent Commission can be appointed.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister name those Governments who have not ratified the Convention?

Mr. Williams: Belgium, Eire, France, Iceland, Portugal and Spain.

Headless Fish (Landings)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he intends to take to stop the landing of headless cod and other long fish from the distant fishing grounds in view of the damage to their keeping qualities; the fouling of grounds; the loss of fishing time; and the loss of fishmeal for cattle, pigs and poultry feeding.

Mr. T. Williams: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a Question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) on 4th April. There is no conclusive evidence that the heading of fish at sea substantially affects keeping quality or is detrimental to the fishing grounds. It does not necessarily involve a loss of fishing time. More fishmeal could be obtained by preventing heading at sea, but this might lead to less fish being landed for human consumption.

Sir D. Robertson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fishing industry is unanimously in favour of returning to the traditional practice of landing fish whole? This new practice has simply come about because of the interference of the Minister of Food in a well-meant endeavour to bring in more fish, and all he is doing is to bring in more bad fish. Should it not be stopped? The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the production of all food.

Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir, but the hon. Member is aware that while I appreciate the urgent need for more fishmeal as protein feedingstuff and so forth, I am also anxious to see that the human family are not deprived of any of the fish we could obtain while there is such a shortage of meat.

Mr. William Shepherd: Is the Minister of opinion on examination of this question that the heading of fish does reduce the keeping qualities, and what is the scientific estimate of the effect of the heading of fish on the fouling of the fishing grounds?

Mr. Williams: Experiments carried out by the Torry Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research have shown that as regards the keeping qualities there is no great advantage or disadvantage directly attributable to the heading of fish at sea.

Mr. Edward Evans: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that to retain the head of a fish decreases the effect of the weight of the fish on those in the lower strata in the hold, because the heavy bone in the head of the fish reduces the pressure on the fish underneath?

Mr. Williams: It is obvious that if all the fish are headed there is more accommodation for the bodies of the fish, of which the human family are in urgent need.

Mr. Scollan: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that all the people in the longshore fishing industry are agreed that this practice has spoiled some of the best fishing grounds not only in the North Sea, but in the White Sea and in the far fishing grounds, and would he do something to get this practice stopped instead of spoiling the fishing?

Mr. Williams: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no unanimity among the trawler owners. There is no reason why they should not start bringing in whole fish instead of heading them at sea.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

County Committees (Accounts)

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will arrange for each county agricultural executive committee to publish annual accounts covering all its activities, starting with the year 1948–49.

Mr. T. Williams: Any accounts for county agricultural executive committees which are to be published will be submitted by my Department to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for audit. The figures relating to such transactions of all the committees already appear in the annual Appropriation Accounts of my Department. It is proposed to publish annual trading accounts relating to the various trading services of committees, commencing with the year 1948–49. The exact form of these accounts and in particular the question whether separate figures will be given for each committee has not yet been settled.

Mr. Amory: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that generally when people have good accounts they are keen to publish them, and when they have bad accounts they are sometimes reluctant to do so; also will he remember that his present policy encourages the opinion that there are certain extravagances which will be concealed? Does he not agree that that is not fair to the individual committees who are doing such excellent work?

Mr. Baldwin: Does not the Minister agree that it would be of great interest and value to the country if the county committees would publish their accounts separately in view of the fact that many county executives are doing their job efficiently and that some are not doing it efficiently? In view of the need for keeping down expenditure does he not think that that is desirable.

Mr. Williams: I have said to the House on several occasions—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) did agree

with me a few years back—that to publish separate accounts would necessitate very long explanatory notes at the bottom, comparing county with county geographically, with the rainfall and all the rest, or wrong conclusions might be reached.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that may have been true, and was true, for three or four years, during and immediately after the war, but it does not follow that it is still true or that it will be true in future?

Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the geographical considerations, the rainfall and other factors, have not changed during the past three years.

Mr. J. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, having regard to the geographical factors being one consideration, that a common system of accountancy is very desirable in these matters.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the Minister aware that there is a very great demand in the counties that these accounts should be published; and does not he agree that if they were published it would greatly strengthen the position of the county executive committees which are now closed corporations in the eyes of the inhabitants and the farmers?

Mr. Williams: I assure the hon. and gallant Member that I have received no such representations from any county.

Flooding, Lincolnshire

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Agriculture what action is being taken to close the gap in the sand-hills at Anderby Creek, Lincolnshire, through which a considerable quantity of arable land was recently flooded; and what compensation is available to the farmers concerned.

Mr. T. Williams: I understand that the Lindsey County Council are considering a scheme for closing the breach in the sandhills near Anderby Creek. I regret that I am not aware of any funds out of which farmers who suffered losses as a result of the recent flooding could be compensated.

Commander Maitland: Does the Minister realise that a considerable number of houses have either been


destroyed or damaged in this area for which he is ultimately responsible; and does he also realise, with reference to the last part of his answer, that the present Bill before Parliament does not improve the possibility of giving any assistance to these people in any way whatever?

Mr. Williams: I can only repeat that I know of no source from which funds are available for compensation in these cases. I certainly have not any at my disposal.

Willow Beds (Planting)

Mr. David Eccles: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the increase in price of Argentine willows and exchange difficulties with that country, he will take steps to encourage the planting of new willow beds in England.

Mr. T. Williams: The difficulties to which the hon. Member refers and the consequent restrictions on the importation of willows from the Argentine in themselves provide an encouragement to home willow production.

Mr. Eccles: If the willow growers make proposals to the right hon. Gentleman for the limitation of these imports, either by quantitative control or tariffs, will the Minister consider that seriously?

Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. Member that I have already had conversations with representatives of the willow growers. Arising out of these conversations, I believe that the parties responsible are considering the possibility of a marketing scheme.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is there anything in any international agreement to prevent the Minister taking advantage of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles)?

Mr. Williams: Not that I am aware of.

Forestry, Forest of Dean

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether in view of the long delay and misunderstandings that have arisen between the Forestry Commission on the one hand and local authorities and industrial concerns on the other in the Forest of Dean over matters of public interest, he will consider setting

up machinery whereby these difficulties do not in future arise.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. I am aware that there are certain difficult questions to be settled in this area, but I am satisfied that the existing machinery for dealing with them is adequate.

Mr. Philips Price: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it might be desirable for the Director of Forestry for England and Wales to meet local bodies in the Forest of Dean from time to time in order to thresh out difficult questions as they arise?

Mr. Williams: The Chairman of the Forestry Commission is fully aware of the difficult propositions in the Forest of Dean. I can assure my hon. Friend that they are doing their best to square them up.

Mr. Philips Price: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a local authority in the Forest of Dean recently wanted an extension of a cemetery and was offered by the local officials a marsh at an old colliery working?

Mr. Williams: That may be, but I understand that in the same area there was also some idea of building a crematorium.

Land Settlement Association

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the total head office expenses of the Land Settlement Association.

Mr. T. Williams: Head Office expenses of the Land Settlement Association, Ltd., were £38,525 in 1947–48, the last year for which audited accounts are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAFFIC IN HORSES (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now announce the names of the other members of the Committee he has set up to inquire into the traffic in horses.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. I have already announced that the Earl of Rosebery will be Chairman of this Committee and I am now able to state that the other members will be my hon. Friend the Member for South Battersea


(Mrs. Ganley), the hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White), Lord Digby, and Professor W. M. Mitchell, Principal of the Royal (Dick) Veterinary College.

Mr. Freeman: Will my right hon. Friend impress upon these people the urgency of presenting a report as soon as possible, and can he say whether they will be able to commence their sittings right away?

Mr. Williams: That is already in the mind of the Chairman.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Will the Minister say whether there are any Scotsmen on this Committee?

Mr. Williams: The Chairman.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY CABLES, BERKSHIRE

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if his attention has been drawn to the inability of the Southern Electricity Board to proceed with their plans to supply electricity to Woodland St. Mary and Lambourn Woodlands in Berkshire, owing to the high costs consequent on the requirement of the Air Ministry that part of the cable should be laid underground and if, in view of the urgent need for electricity to be supplied to these districts, he will consult with the Service Departments to ensure that such adventitious costs are met from public funds.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): The question whether the Southern Electricity Board should proceed with this particular extension is a matter relating to the day-to-day operation of the Board and not one in which my right hon. Friend can intervene. As regards the cost of the work, there do not appear to be any special circumstances which would justify an approach being made to the Service Departments with a suggestion that they should vary the recognised practice in such cases.

Mr. Hurd: Is it not a fact that the Southern Electricity Board have reached agreement with the local residents to proceed with their scheme, and that, through the action of the Air Ministry, the cost

of the scheme was made prohibitive by some £4,000 or £5,000 by their requirement that some of the cables must be laid underground? Should that not be a charge on public funds rather than a prohibition on local residents?

Mr. Robens: There are many occasions when it is necessary to lay underground cables rather than have overhead wires, and this case did not seem to be one for intervention by the Department.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is this not another case similar to one we heard about in. the last few weeks? Surely, the Government made the claim that nationalisation would provide cheap supplies of electricity in the rural areas?

Mr. Robens: Not at all. That has nothing to do with it. This has been the common practice of the electricity industry for many years.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Opencast Mining (Cost)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the average cost of production per ton of opencast coal which is being obtained at present.

Mr. Robens: The estimated average cost of opencast coal for the year ended 31st March, 1949, was 44s. 6d. per ton, of which 29s. was the cost of production at site.

Colonel Lancaster: Would the Parliamentary Secretary explain to the House why there should be this immense disparity between the cost of producing opencast coal and producing iron ore, which is a similar process in almost wholly similar conditions?

Mr. Robens: There are differences, of course, in the production of opencast coal, as compared with the production of iron ore, because of the varying depth at which the coal is found.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Would not the cost of opencast coal be much lower if the Departmental overheads were not so high?

Mr. Robens: I do not think so. I think the Department runs it very efficiently, if I may say so.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is it not a fact that the seams now being worked are of lower quality than hitherto, and that therefore the amount of coal obtained is less than hitherto?

Mr. Robens: No. The seams vary from area to area, and in many cases are as good in quality as deep-mined coal.

Mr. Baldwin: Can the Minister say whether the cost per ton as given by him, includes the cost of the reinstatement of the land in its former condition?

Mr. Robens: Yes, it does, and that is one difference with iron ore, where, of course, the land is not reinstated.

Prices

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to ensure that the cheaper prices that merchants are paying for coal to the National Coal Board than that paid to factors will be passed on to the consumer.

Mr. Robens: It cannot be assumed that there will necessarily be a saving to be passed on to the consumer. The factors performed wholesale distributive services which will have to be provided either by the National Coal Board, in which case an appropriate charge to the merchant will be made, or by the merchant himself, who will incur additional expenses.

Mr. Piratin: Is the Minister aware that in the trade it is suggested that the merchants will get as much as ls. 6d. per ton in buying direct from the National Coal Board, and will he take steps, if that is so, to see that it is passed on to the consumers?

Mr. Robens: Yes. If there is a reduction in the distributive costs as the result of merchants buying from the Coal Board that will be reflected in the review made from time to time by my Department and the necessary adjustments in retail prices will be made.

Colonel Haughton: Is there any clear and universal definition of "merchants" and "factors" in this particular context?

Mr. Robens: All the alteration did was to enable merchants to go direct to the National Coal Board or to a factor, if they so desired, or for the Coal Board to do the factoring themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL (PRICE)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can now state if there will be a reduction in the price of petrol per gallon following the termination of the petrol pool.

Mr. Robens: My right hon. Friend has no evidence at present that the dissolution of the Petroleum Board by itself would justify a reduction in the price of petrol. The prices of all petroleum products depend upon the costs of importation and distribution. The possible effect on prices of recent changes in these costs is at present under discussion between my Department and representatives of the distributing oil companies.

Mr. De la Bère: May I ask the Minister why, in view of the fact that there has been a substantial reduction in the cost of fuel oil in all parts of the world, it is only in this country that no reduction can be made? Why is it that we never know where we stand under the present Government?

Mr. Robens: In reply to the latter part of the question, I might suggest that it is the incapacity of the hon. Gentleman to understand many of the things said in this House. In regard to the cost of fuel oils, the price of gas oils and of other fuel oils has been reduced. The hon. Gentleman's Question. however, was about petrol.

Mr. De la Bère: I want to know where we stand. I am vexed about this, and I am not going to be put off.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:

Monday, 2nd May, and Tuesday, 3rd May—Iron and Steel Bill; 3rd and 4th allotted days, respectively, of the Report stage.

Wednesday, 4th May—Report and Third Reading of the Mid-Northampton-shire Water Board Order Confirmation (Special Procedure) Bill; and

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Water (Scotland) Bill, and the Special Roads Bill.

Thursday, 5th May—Supply (12th allotted Day); Committee, Debate on the situation in China and attacks on H.M. ships.

Friday, 6th May—Second Reading of the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Bill, which is expected to be received from another place today; and

Second Reading of the British Film Institute Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Mr. Eden: There is one point which I should like to make about Business. The right hon. Gentleman will notice that Thursday is taken out of the Opposition's time. We have agreed to that, although the Prime Minister had offered a day himself. We have done that because we realised that the right hon. Gentleman wanted the Debate soon, and that it might be difficult to find a day out of Government time. In return for this, I feel that I am justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not perhaps find another day for the Report stage of the Iron and Steel Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember what happened yesterday on the new Clauses. I was not here myself; I was engaged on non-controversial business elsewhere. The only two new Clauses which were at all adequately discussed yesterday were the Government's new Clauses, and all the six others—three Liberal and three from this side of the House—were not discussed at all. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will consider that a very happy state of affairs if it is to be continued for the remainder of the Report stage, and I hope he will answer my very reasonable plea.

Mr. Morrison: I was getting ready to be nice and accommodating and reasonable, because I thought that what the right hon. Gentleman was leading up to was that, having agreed to a Supply Day for the Debate on China next week, it strengthened the hands of the usual channels on his side of the House in the negotiations for other special day

Debates. I was going to be nice about it, and I really had no idea that he was coming to the question of the Guillotine on the Iron and Steel Bill, which stiffened me up somewhat.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Pushing us around.

Mr. Morrison: Where has the right hon. Gentleman been to?

Mr. Macmillan: Where is the right hon. Gentleman going to?

Mr. H. Morrison: I did not think we had been ungenerous about the Report stage. [Interruption.] Actually, it is a day more than was given to the Report stage to the longer, and as I think rather more complicated, Transport Bill of an earlier Session, and I did not think we had done badly. If I might respectfully suggest to the Opposition what would be advantageous to them, it is that they might see their way to make more economical use of the time that is available. As the House knows, I deplore the Guillotine; I do not like it, but it has got to be. Honestly, I did not think myself that the time allocations under this Guillotine, either in Committee or on Report stage, in the circumstances of the case were unreasonable.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Lord President say when it is proposed to introduce into the House the North Atlantic Treaty for Debate and ratification?

Mr. Morrison: That will not be next week, but I shall see to it. The hon. Gentleman can take it that it will be quite soon.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who represent mining areas find that the local authorities greatly appreciate the publication of the report on mining subsidence, and, in view of that, will be give an undertaking that he will consider the early implementation of that report?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly; the Government will, of course, consider the report. I understand that hon. Gentlemen representing mining constituencies wish to have a talk with Ministers and I am trying to arrange that as soon as possible.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday I called your attention to the fact that Questions had occupied nearly half an hour, to which you kindly replied that it was a matter for consultation through the usual channels. I am wondering whether I might ask the Lord President now if he would be prepared to reconsider the Standing Order so as to allow Questions to be called over a second time and thus give more opportunity for important Questions to he answered?

Mr. Morrison: I agree that this week there has been a shortage of Questions, a shortage which has continued even up to today, but, taking the general run of days, Questions not only last out the time, but there are usually more Questions than it is possible to reach. Whilst I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, and whilst I recall the practice of earlier days, I do not think we ought to revert to that practice. On the whole, I think that the present system is best. After all, if hon. Members put down Questions, there is an obligation upon them to be in the House.

Mr. Speaker: We have an important statement to come and we have the Guillotine at 5.30, and we do not want to take time from the Debate.

INDIA (COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS)

3.23 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like on behalf of the Prime Minister to make a statement about the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Minister's which has just been concluded. Hon. Members will already have seen the announcement in today's newspapers. It will, of course, be realised that it was necessary to make the results of the Conference known in this way in order to facilitate simultaneous announcements in all the self-governing countries of the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, I think the House would wish to hear the terms of this statement so that a decision which will, I feel sure, be regarded as an historic one in the evolution of the Commonwealth may take its place in the records of the

House with the least possible delay. The communiqué is as follows:

MEETING OF PRIME MINISTERS

During the past week the Prime Ministers of the United' Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, and the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs have met in London to exchange views upon the important constitutional issues arising from India's decision to adopt a republican form of constitution and her desire to continue her membership of the Commonwealth.

The discussions have been concerned with the effects of such a development upon the existing structure of the Commonwealth and the constitutional relations between its members. They have been conducted in an atmosphere of good will and mutual understanding, and have had as their historical background the traditional capacity of the Commonwealth to strengthen its unity of purpose, while adapting its organisation and procedures to changing circumstances.

After full discussion the representatives of the Governments of all the Commonwealth countries have agreed that the conclusions reached should be placed on record in the following declaration:—
The Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, whose countries are united as Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and owe a common allegiance to the Crown, which is also the symbol of their free association, have considered the impending constitutional changes in India.
The Government of India have informed the other Governments of the Commonwealth of the intention of the Indian people that under the new constitution which is about to be adopted India shall become a sovereign independent republic. The Government of India have however declared and affirmed India's desire to continue her full membership of the Commonwealth of Nations and her acceptance of The King as the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth.
The Governments of the other countries of the Commonwealth, the basis of whose membership of the Commonwealth is not hereby changed, accept and recognise India's continuing membership in accordance with the terms of this declaration.
Accordingly the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon hereby declare that they remain united as free and equal members of the Commonwealth of Nations, freely co-operating in the pursuit of peace, liberty, and progress.

These constitutional questions have been, the sole subject of discussion at the full meetings of Prime Ministers.

That is the statement. I hope the House will bear with me if I venture to


suggest that any full discussion of this matter, if it is the wish of the House that this should take place, might more appropriately be deferred until a later occasion. I say this, having regard particularly to the fact that the leaders of delegations from the other countries of the Commonwealth are naturally not yet in a position to report personally to their own Governments or Parliaments.

Mr. Churchill: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask whether the Lord President is aware of the deep interest with which we have listened to his statement. I am well aware of the difficulties of clock time and sun time throughout the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations—and I do not say that they have been satisfactorily solved on this occasion,—which seem to assign to London and Great Britain 2 a.m. as the moment of release for an important declaration. One would think this might be a matter for further consideration on future occasions. But I am all the more glad that His Majesty's Government have met the request which I made to them with the full support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party, that the joint declaration of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers should be reported formally to the House and thus take its place not merely—or, perhaps, I ought to say, not only—in the newspapers, but in our Parliamentary records. Any other course, I feel, would be derogatory to Parliament and especially to the Mother of Parliaments.
Final judgment on matters of such gravity and far-reaching merit is impossible today. Debates have to take place not only here, but in the Parliaments which are concerned and which are located in the five continents of the globe. There are many questions which arise and which are unanswered, and there are possible consequences, some of them potentially adverse, which cannot yet be measured. Nevertheless, I feel that I should be failing in my duty as Leader of the Conservative Party if on this occasion I failed to express, under all proper and necessary reserves, a definite view. The test question which, it seems to me, we ought to ask ourselves, and which I have asked myself, is: Do we wish India to remain of her own free will and desire within the Commonwealth or not? I

have no doubt whatever that nearly all of us in all parts of the House would answer that question "Aye."
I do not in any way retract or regret the views I have expressed over so many years, and I am very glad not to be responsible for much that has been done in the past—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—and in the recent past. But we are all of us governed by events which we cannot control, and by the actions of majorities duly elected to the House of Commons. Six months ago I said in this House in the Debate on the King's Speech:
We must look forward. It is our duty, whatever part we have taken in the past, to hope and pray for the well being and happiness of all the peoples of India, of whatever race, religion, social condition or historic character they may be. We must wish them all well and do what we can to help them on their road. Sorrow may lie in our hearts but bitterness and malice must be purged from them, and in our future more remote relations with India we must rise above all prejudice and partiality"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I said this six months ago—
and not allow our vision to be clouded by memories of glories that are gone for ever."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 251.]
The present attitude of India seems to me more favourable to continued association than it did when those words were spoken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is more favourable. I am unfeignedly glad that an impassable gulf has not opened between the new India and the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations or between our famous past in India and our anxious present all over the world. I am sure that this will be a help for all in the future. I am well aware of the arguments about equal sacrifices and contributions, belonging to the club and taking the advantages and not contributing to the rules but, as the Bible says, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." It is certainly more agreeable to have the power to give rather than the need to receive. We do not always find ourselves in that position in respect to some other countries in the world.
If, on the whole, we most of us feel able to answer the test question in the affirmative and wish to have India associated with us in the future, it is fortunate that the institution of the Monarchy, never more deeply enshrined in the


hearts of its proud and willing subjects and citizens all over the world than at the present time, should not have been a barrier to the inclusion of India as a Republic in the Commonwealth.
Some time ago, when, by courtesy of Ministers, I had some indication of what was afoot, I foresaw some danger that the symbol of the Crown, which had hitherto been the circle of unity for the whole British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations, might become an exclusive instrument in respect of India in its new guise. I am sure it has been wise to avoid any chance of that. I cannot feel that either the majesty of the Crown or the personal dignity of the King is impaired by the conditions under which India remains in the Commonwealth. On the contrary, the final significance, the vital significance and value of the Monarchy, seems to be enhanced both by the latest proofs of its enduring importance to the other Dominions, as testified by their responsible Prime Ministers, and to the fact— [HON. MEMBERS "This is out of Order."] I take it that it is in the public interest, when an important statement is made in the House by the Government, that the views of other parties should be ascertained, and I have no doubt that the Adjournment could be moved if that were desired by the Government.
It seems to me that the personal dignity of the King is not impaired by the conditions under which India remains in the Commonwealth. The final significance and value of the Monarchy seems to be enhanced by the way in which the King is acknowledged by the Republic of India and by the Commonwealth monarchies alike. [Interruption.] It is astonishing how far below the level of events hon. Gentlemen are showing themselves to fall.

Mr. Warbey: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance whether we are to have a series of extensive comments on this statement and, if so, on what Motion those comments are to be made?

Mr. Speaker: One knows perfectly well that on these formal occasions it is the right of leaders of political parties to state their party's point of view. Rather than have an Adjournment, I gave my consent to this, and I take full responsibility for it. Realising that the Guillo-

tine has to fall at 5.30 and that, therefore, there is little time for discussion on the Steel Bill, I thought this was the quickest way out: that statements should be made by the responsible leaders of the Opposition parties. It is not for me to tell them how long or how short they should be.

Mr. Churchill: I should like to put this point. It seems to me that, far from being any derogation of the Monarchy, the proof of the attachment and importance that all the Dominions gives to it has shown the strength and vitality of that institution.
We cannot, of course, tell how all this will work out in practice, and obviously there are many difficult questions and dangers to be surmounted. There is no doubt however—this I say to all my friends on this side—that it is the duty of us all, wherever we sit, to try our best to make this new expression of the unity of the world-wide association of States and nations a practical and lasting success, and that is the course which we on this side of the House intend to steer. I feel that the tides of the world are favourable to our voyage. The pressure of dangers and duties that are shared in common by all of us in these days may well make new harmonies with India and, indeed, with large parts of Asia. We may also see coming into view an even larger and wider synthesis of States and nations comprising both the United States of America and united Europe which may one day, and perhaps not a distant day, bring to harassed and struggling humanity, real security for peace and freedom and for hearth and home.

Mr. Clement Davies: Inasmuch as there is to be further Debate on this at some later stage, may I content myself with merely saying at the moment that I believe there is general satisfaction in every freedom-loving country throughout the world that the Prime Ministers, each one of them with a heavy sense of responsibility for his own country, have nevertheless been able to arrive at this arrangement. I am sure that it is the sincere hope of us all that, using the words of this declaration, there will be even closer cooperation for those causes of liberty, peace and progress which are the desire of all of us.
Let me add this. I think it is only right that we should—and I desire to


do so most sincerely—congratulate the Prime Minister on calling these Prime Ministers from the various countries together. I am quite sure that his tact and understanding have played a major part in bringing about this historical agreement and declaration.

Mr. H. Morrison: If I may, I would say on behalf of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that we express our thanks for and appreciation of the generally friendly observations that have been made about this matter by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party. It is a good thing—a very good thing and not a bad thing—that there should be general harmony about this matter between the parties in the House. Therefore I cordially welcome what the Leader of the Opposition has said. He took his time, but I make no complaint about it. I cordially welcome what he said, and thank him for his observations, and no less the Leader of the Liberal Party. In these Commonwealth matters, the more we can march together in this House, the better it is for everybody.

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Clause 5.—(SUBSIDY IN RESPECT OF IMPORTED MATERIALS.)

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 22, to leave out Clause 5.
The object of this Amendment is to delete from the Bill the statutory provision for the payment or employment of iron and steel subsidies. We on this side of the House think that it is dangerous in principle to incorporate in the Bill an undertaking that the general taxpayer shall make himself responsible for subsidies. Especially do we feel this in the light of Clause 29—or Clause 29 as we used to know it: I think it is now Clause 31—which says that, taking one year with another, the Corporation has to make its income and expenditure account balance. The Minister during the Committee stage conceded the point to which we attach great importance that if there are subsidies paid they are to extend over the whole iron and steel industry. That is a valuable point.
However, since the time when this Bill was under discussion in Committee has come the decision that iron and steel subsidies are to be ended; and I think that the principle that the right hon. Gentleman apparently concedes by that decision ought to be maintained in the Bill, and that if losses are to be incurred they should not, ab initio,be concealed by subsidies, and that the general taxpayer should not be required to make the Minister's conglomeration of steel companies profitable by rights given to him in the Bill. We also consider it undesirable that bad buying should also be concealed until, perhaps, the annual Debate takes place on this matter.
I should be very glad to hear from the Minister why he considers it necessary to maintain this statutory power. I quite agree that there may be times when some help in buying scrap abroad, or in the importation of iron ore, may be necessary for the nationalised undertakings; but the Corporation has got to pay its way,


and I think it is better to deal with this matter in the most realistic manner, and to delete this Clause from the Bill, and oblige the Minister to come back to Parliament if he requires any extensive system of subsidy.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): I do not think it would really be wise to omit this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman admits that it may be necessary—we cannot tell—to provide a Government subsidy to level external prices and internal prices, and to prevent a quite unreasonable burden from being put upon the steel consumers. That has been done up to now with, I think, the general agreement of all sides of the House. Although most of the subsidies are now withdrawn, the House must appreciate that some subsidies still remain. There remain the subsidy on imported finished steel and the repayment of import duty on pig-iron and steel. We hope that those subsidies may be abolished before long; but we cannot tell: they may have to continue. We see no point in abandoning this Clause which is solely permissive. We see no point in putting the Government and the House to the inconvenience, if on some future occasion it is decided that it is necessary either to continue the present subsidies or to give new ones, of bringing in a Bill for that specific purpose. We can see no purpose in doing that. This Clause is permissive. If the Government were to embark on a subsidy policy, they would report it to the House, and the House would be aware of it. It seems a more straightforward method to allow this permissive Clause to remain in the Bill.

Mr. William Shepherd: The Minister has said that this Clause is purely permissive, and has made a case in relation to finished steel. I think most hon. Members will be prepared to agree that there will be some materials imported in respect of which there will be a case for preferential price, if not some form of subsidy; but although we may concede that some sort of subsidy is necessary in certain cases in existing circumstances, because of the difference in the price of imported and home products, there is, surely, no reason for continuing in this Clause subsidies on so wide a range of materials. Surely, we are not for an indefinite period to go on paying

subsidies on such materials. Surely it is possible, through the establishment of a Corporation like the B.I.S.C., to even out the effect of those disparities in price without resort to subsidies. In a Bill which is a major Measure, and which, but for the imminence of the next General Election, would, perhaps, have had a long passage, we should not write in something which we have no intention of pursuing permanently. Surely, the Minister is not telling the House that for an indefinite period of time he is going to pay useless, unnecessary subsidies on raw materials. Although a case may exist for subsidies in respect of finished steel—and I think there is a case there, and I do not see any answer to not maintaining subsidies at the present time—there is no case really for them for raw materials. If the Minister cannot agree to the abolition of this Clause, I think he ought to see that, in another place, this reference to raw materials is eliminated.

Mr. Erroll: I fully appreciate that this Clause, as the Minister has said, gives him permissive powers only. On the other hand, it does seem rather curious that such permissive powers should be given to the Minister at the very time when the bulk of the payments or subsidies in respect of the iron and steel industry are being withdrawn. It is surely a remarkable change in policy that, at the same time as the subsidies are being largely withdrawn, we should be writing into the Bill permissive power to continue them indefinitely. This applies not only to the type of subsidies which have been paid in the past—during the war and the immediate post-war period—but, according to this Clause, to subsidies which can be paid in respect of any imported materials such as alloying elements or other materials. Therefore, the Clause gives the Minister very wide permissive powers—far wider than anything he has hitherto seen fit to exercise.
In addition to that, the presence of this Clause in the Bill gives the impression that the Minister contemplates at some time in the future a long continued subsidy, and not just a subsidy to cover one particular year, or two particular years. If that is what the Minister has in mind he would surely use a simpler method—a Supplementary Estimate or a Clause in the Finance Bill of the particular year—


to achieve his object. If only temporary subsidies to cover particular temporary difficulties are envisaged, there is clearly no need for this Clause in the Bill, as there are other methods of paying the Corporation out of moneys provided by Parliament. In any case, the amount to be paid would have to be specified in a Supplementary Estimate or by some other method, so the Clause for occasional payment is unnecessary. If regular payments over a period of years are envisaged, the House is entitled to have a more exact indication of the way in which the Minister intends to use these powers.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Here again, we are up against a question of principle rather than the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman or the interpretation which can be placed upon the wording of this Clause. It is common ground—and has been during the whole of this Parliament—that the various experiments under nationalisation and public control would be judged by results. What better method is there of judging the success or failure of these various experiments—and this one in particular—than to be confronted with the actual figures of profit and loss and thereby focusing the whole situation in the public eye?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) made an important point when he referred to the question of concealed losses. It is a great temptation to those operating any undertaking under a system of this kind to know that standing behind them all the time is the Government. The whole mental approach of those operating the Corporation must undoubtedly be governed by the possibility that their losses can be concealed, or camouflaged, by the method of subsidy. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman's plea just now that it would be a bad thing or a disadvantage if he had to come to the House and introduce a new Bill.
He tried to dissuade us from pressing this Amendment because it might mean, at a future stage, the introduction of a new Bill to deal with some situation which may arise. I believe that would be an excellent and healthy thing because Parliament is then confronted with the actual cold facts of the situation. After all, we are still here as guardians of the

money of the public who elect us, and a public which is staggering under a crushing burden of taxation. If it is to be loaded once more with the losses of an industry of this kind, surely the greatest publicity possible is the healthiest thing. The officials of the Corporation would know that if they lose money and go down hill they are going to put their Minister through the ordeal of the introduction of a new Bill and explaining the situation to justify those losses—

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I interrupt because I want to help the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I do not think that he can have read the Clause. It is not a question of repaying losses made by the Corporation. The Clause merely deals with the situation in which the prices of products in this country are cheaper than the prices of those products abroad, and the more expensive products from abroad have to be imported. We cannot under this Clause repay losses in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has argued.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made that intervention because it is completely in accord with the arguments made by this side about the iron and steel industry in general. I think that I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman said, "Do not put me to the trouble of having in future to introduce a separate Bill." That was one of the reasons which he advanced for retaining this Clause. I am sure that in saying that I am not doing him an injustice. I think that it would be a very excellent thing if he had to do that, because it would bring the matter into the full glare of publicity. It is, of course, possible for losses to be concealed by this method.
I admit being at the disadvantage of not having been on the Standing Committee. That is not my fault but the fault of the Leader of the House who took the matter away from us and it is, therefore, a little difficult to follow all the lengthy proceedings upstairs when one has not been there. But the simple point that I am making is—and here surely the right hon. Gentleman will not quarrel too seriously with me—that if this scheme is to be justified as an experiment, let it operate in the full glare of publicity and with the fullest possible discussion in


Parliament. If amending Bills have to come later, so much the better because it will keep the matter before us.

Mr. Mitchison: I am shocked by what we have just heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite). If he has looked at the Clauses of the Bill dealing with the accounts of the Corporation, he will have seen that they have to conform with the best commercial standards, and yet, according to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it would be possible under the best commercial standards to conceal in some mysterious way losses made by the Corporation under the cloak of these subsidies. This I find very shocking. That may be his idea of the best commercial standards; I confess that it is hardly mine. I had hoped that they were better than that. Are we to understand that the best commercial standards allow iron and steel companies at present to conceal any losses that may inadvertently be made under the cloak of subsidies that they have already been receiving? I should have thought that that suggestion was not only contrary to the best commercial practice but insulting to the honourable profession who prepare and audit the accounts of these companies.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: This Clause is permissive only, but it provides a temptation for the Corporation; and a temptation from which, I think, the Corporation ought to be protected. The document "Labour Believes in Britain" has said that there must be no feather beds for those who fail the nation. It is true that the extensive use of feather beds has been provided in the National Coal Board and similar bodies, and I trust that there is now to be a change of heart on the part of the Government. This provision is in fact a feather bed. The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) hit the nail on the head when he said just now that this Clause will mean an entirely different mental approach from that which would obtain if there were no such Clause. That, I believe, to be the heart of this matter. When the Corporation realise that they have to make both ends meet, they are more likely to do so than if they find a Clause of this character. It is common experience that when provision is made to milk public funds, public funds are

in fact milked. That is human nature. For that reason, it would be an excellent thing not to have this Clause in the Bill. The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) has given good reasons why it should not apply to imported materials. He was willing to accept finished steel but even in the case of finished steel, I think that there is no case for having this Clause in the Bill.
Let us consider what the position will be. This Bill cannot become effective—even if the General Election were to go in a different direction from that in which we on this side of the House expect it to go—until some time in the summer or autumn of next year. Steel production is rising steadily. The world demand for steel is at its peak at the present time, owing to the wartime ravages, and steel production in Germany is being allowed to increase. It ought not to be the case that we shall need to import finished steel very much longer, in which case the need for a subsidy on imported steel will not arise. I feel, therefore, that the motive behind this Clause is thoroughly bad; the Clause provides a temptation for which the Corporation is almost certainly bound to fall, and I trust the Minister will even yet delete the Clause.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: One cannot but be amused by the fact that a few months ago the Government benches were deriding the British steel industry for the reason that it was gaining a large Government subsidy, while today we find them here as the exponents of, and the demanders for, the continuation of those subsidies. I wish to add but a few words to what has already been said.
First, if the industry is subsidised it naturally loses its sense of acuteness and the intense need for competition. We have recently had a very good example of that in the scrap shipments from Germany. Everyone in the steel industry knew that they were being subsidised; the cost of the scrap was agreed by the outside Government Department with the Americans, and it was a very high price indeed. If they had been people who were earnestly concerned whether their profit or the profitability of their firm depended on the price at which they could acquire scrap from abroad, undoubtedly they would have worked very much harder for a lower price for Ger-


man scrap. I think that we may yet see the German scrap price fall, because we shall be much keener to get it down.
The same thing will, I believe, apply throughout the steel industry on the question of subsidy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) said, with the subsidy there is a feather bed which the individual publicly-owned company and the Corporation can fall back on, knowing that behind them they have the Minister and an unlimited public purse. We really feel that this Clause should be deleted from the Bill. If need be, if a serious situation should arise, the Minister should come to this House and ask for the re-allotment of such subsidy. It is again a question of Parliamentary control. We believe that the efficiency of the industry will be greater if those subsidies are deleted from the Bill.

Mr. Pickthorn: Surely the guardians of the public interest on the Treasury Bench must feel that this Clause places upon them a much heavier weight of proof than they have yet here discharged. Upon the face of the Clause, it rings almost all the alarm bells. It purports—it is true only permissively—to give future Governments the right, without specific recourse to the House, to spend entirely unlimited sums; there is no ceiling limit at all. That alone puts a very heavy onus of proof upon the Government.
Secondly, it does this for an occasion which admittedly cannot arise at a date which can now be predicted, not within the lifetime of this Parliament. Although no doubt it was properly meant for a gracious courtesy, it is really a kind of contemptuous impertinence for a Minister to say that he wishes to save the Government and the House the trouble of dealing with these things. The trouble of dealing with these things is what the House is for, and without it government becomes not government at all but, as the good Bishop of Hippo said long ago, merely thievery on a greater scale than would otherwise be possible. That is what Parliament is for, so that when sums of money are needed from the public purse the Government should have to come and explain how and why before taking the money, and not merely to announce afterwards how it has happened and to invite inquiry then.
I am rather sorry that there is not a Law Officer on the Government Front Bench, because I wish to ask a rather technical question. This Clause is really technical, and if the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me perhaps he will try to follow the exact words I am going to quote, because otherwise the rest of my argument will become meaningless; I do not guarantee that it will not anyway. I wish to refer to line 27, beginning at "the total cost." The occasion which arises when the Minister or his successor is to be permitted to pay a subsidy is when the total cost of imported materials exceeds the price at which such things are sold in Great Britain. Now, I do not think that the draftsman has succeeded in meaning what he meant to mean. I speak with great diffidence, because I know that the draftsmen are much better at these things than I am. It seems to me that the words as placed are trying to compare two incommensurable things—the cost and the price; because what is really wanted is the cost of buying and the total receipts for selling, which is a different thing from the price of sale. I think that there is a drafting difficulty there.
There is a more important one, I think, in the words, and I do ask the Minister to consider whether this does not want looking at again. As I read the words, hot being a lawyer but taking them as an ordinary, more or less intelligent person who understands English in the literary sense, he is not permitted to start paying his subsidies except when, taking the running account from I do not know what beginning date, all the transactions add up so that the total cost is greater than the total receipts. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman follows what I mean, but I think that is what the wording means. If the total costs are x and the total receipts are x minus q, then he may pay a subsidy. A year later he has still got to take all those figures into account, merely adding on the pluses or minuses that have happened during the intervening years. That seems to me to be the effect of these words, and I really think we ought to have them explained to us by a lawyer.
At any rate, the Minister ought to be able to tell us this. All I have said may be nonsense. I do not think it is wholly nonsense; but certainly I may be


mistaken, and the upshot of what I have said may be mistaken. I fully understand that. But I do not think the right hon. Gentleman or other hon. Members opposite would say, unless they were merely trying to be facetious, that there was no sense or reason in what I have said. The question to which I think the right hon. Gentleman must know the answer without the help of a Law Officer is this: How could that be tested? Suppose the case I have just put for the interpretation of these words. Who is there to test it? As far as I can see, nobody. There is nobody to test whether what I have just said is the right meaning of the words. I will not go into the possible alternative, which is I think obvious. As far as I can see, there would be no way of getting the right meaning of the words.
I always dislike very much these things which are to be done with the consent of the Treasury. There is a curious modern habit in legislation of trying to argue that it is unconstitutional to say that one Minister must consult another. Over and over again I have had that argument used against me by all Governments, but particularly by this one, on the ground that Ministers must be presumed to be of one mind—the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility, and all that. Simultaneously there is this growing habit of saying that' His Majesty's Ministers, His Majesty's Secretary of State or His Majesty's Minister of Supply, or whatever it may be, may or may not do this with the consent of the Treasury. As far as I can see, the sole authority to interpret the meaning of these words is the Treasury and no other, and I think that that multiplies by two or three the burden of proof which the Minister already has upon him when he is asking the House to authorise him or his successors to pay sums of money of an amount wholly unlimited, not now predictable, in circumstances which cannot possibly arise at any time within the calculable future.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I think that we have had a very inadequate explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of the presence of this Clause in the Bill. After all, the presence of this Clause in the Bill raises two perfectly distinct issues. The first is on the question of policy. Should a State-owned iron and

steel industry be in receipt of subsidies from the taxpayer? There is another and to my mind more important question, and that is the question of financial practice and financial procedure. I am astonished that when we are discussing a Clause for the payment of subsidies in a Bill of this character there should be no representative of the Treasury upon the Government Front Bench to defend this subsidy Clause. We have until half-past five upon this batch of clauses, and I seriously suggest that the Minister should get in touch with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and invite him to attend the House in order to defend the presence of this Clause in the Bill.
I will explain why I say that. The financial practice and procedure which has grown up in regard to clauses of this character is that Government expenditure requires statutory authority only if it is to be both substantial and continuous; that is to say, that it is to continue from year to year. All of us who have been in the House' for any length of time have seen innumerable instances of expenditure of money by Governments upon particular objects without statutory authority; that is to say, by the procedure of bringing in a Supplementary Estimate, and with the ex post facto approval of the Appropriation Act at the end of the Session. That has been done by Ministers in my day to provide subsidies for, let us say, the Covent Garden Opera, fireworks for VE-Day, and all sorts of matters of that kind. It is still the fact that even the expenses of the National Savings committees, which have been proceeding since 1917, have as yet got no statutory authority, because when they were first introduced it was not intended that they should in fact be continuous.
Therefore, the presence of this Clause, giving statutory authority for the payment of subsidies to the State-owned iron and steel industry, indicates to the House that these subsidies are, it is apprehended and expected, to be both substantial on the one hand and continuous from year to year upon the other. I say that we should have had here some representative of the Treasury, and I am very much obliged that we now have the presence of the Financial Secretary. For his benefit I will again explain shortly the point I have been making, which is


that the presence of Clause 5—that is the power to subsidise the State-owned Iron and Steel Corporation, giving statutory authority for this expenditure out of the Exchequer—indicates that it is the intention of the Government that expenditure on these subsidies should be both substantial on the one hand, and should continue from year to year on the other.
4.15 p.m.
I have pointed out that if it is merely a matter of getting the Iron and Steel Corporation out of a temporary hole, perhaps one year out of three or five, it would be perfectly proper for the Government to bring in a Supplementary Estimate for that particular year and for that particular limited purpose. They could secure statutory authority from the House after that by means of the Appropriation Act. That is a course which is taken in innumerable cases of Government expenditure for particular objects when that expenditure is not expected to recur year after year.
Apart from the question of policy, which is of the greatest importance, it seems astonishing that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should require statutory power to subsidise this nationalised industry which is going to be so much more efficient and productive than it has ever been before in private hands. That is surprising enough, but it is more surprising to me that they should include in the Bill a Clause which can only be intended to give them power to subsidise the Iron and Steel Corporation year by year to a substantial amount. I therefore suggest that we should have from the Government an explanation why they will not accept our Amendment to leave out the Clause, and then, if the Iron and Steel Corporation requires, as the Minister indicated that it might require in special circumstances and from time to time, a sum of money from the Exchequer to tide it over a particular difficulty in regard, say, to the price of imported scrap or something of that character, the Government could come to the House and obtain, by way of a Supplementary Estimate, statutory authority in a way which is perfectly normal.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Once again I find myself drawn

into this discussion by my interest in the arguments presented by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas). The last two speakers raised, not objections to the payment of the subsidy at all, but one, objections to the drafting of the Clause, and the other, questions of policy that might be inferred from the presence in the Bill of a Clause of this kind. I did not understand either of the last two speakers to object to the payment of subsidies. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) wanted an explanation of the legal circumstances in which the payment might arise, while the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) very properly raised a point whether there is an inference as to the amount and the permanence of the subsidy to be drawn from the following of this procedure rather than another. Both those speakers contemplate that a payment may have to be made in appropriate circumstances.
Not so the hon. Member for Keighley. He is against it altogether. He does not want the Clause or the subsidy. He is against it on broad public grounds. He says that wherever a subsidy is payable people are under a temptation. In saying that, he says something that I should not have expected him to say, of all Members; he says that where there is a temptation nobody resists it. [An HON. MEMBER: "He could not."] That is the argument which he puts forward. In his opinion advantage would be taken of the opportunity, and that is why he does not want the opportunity to be there. I am not so cynical myself. I do not think that everybody who is entitled to a subsidy always cheats.
Let us assume, nevertheless, that the hon. Gentleman is right and that therefore there ought to be no subsidy. Then, of course, what we have to do is to examine whether the position is better under the Bill or better without it. Subsidies were paid without it. Subsidies are being paid now. [An HON. MEMBER: "No"] Certainly, The hon. Member for Keighley says that subsidies should never be paid because the temptation to cheat is, in his opinion, irresistible. Surely the position may be just a little better and not a little worse if we take that irresistible temptation out of the hands of private companies and private individuals who make a personal, individual profit out of it, and if we limit


the temptation to a public corporation which, by statute, makes no profit at all.
Therefore the hon. Gentleman, so far from quarrelling with his Friends and crossing the Floor of the House, bitterly attacking, even vituperating, them in all the speeches which he makes, and joining another party on the ground that they are doing what they are doing, transferring an irresistible temptation to make private profit from the particular individuals who make it to a public corporation, subject to controls by this House—

Mr. Lyttelton: I think the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), carried away by his own eloquence, has committed one error which I do not think he intended. He said I think that the corporation and its subsidiaries were going to make no profits. I do not understand that at all from the Bill.

Mr. Silverman: I am very grateful for the correction. I suppose I am revealing no secret when I say that I am not an expert about steel or about the Bill. If it be the case, and for the purposes of this argument I am prepared to accept it, that the right hon. Gentleman is right—I am not quite sure about it, but let us suppose that he is right—and that the Bill does contemplate that the Iron and Steel Corporation might make a profit, I think he will agree that it will not be a private profit and that nobody will put it into his pocket. The right hon. Gentleman will say that whether the profit be private or not, one in fact will be made, and so we come to the same thing in the end. Suppose it were permissible to make a profit and that a profit were made. That profit will remain in the hands of a public corporation, and the administration and the use of it will be controlled, at whatever remove, by this House. The hon. Member for Keighley does not want that. He wants this irresistible temptation to make a private profit to remain. That is why he left the Labour Party and joined the Tory Party.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The hon. Member should not show more ignorance about our Debates on steel than is necessary. He must be aware that we on this side of the House ask for the ending of subsidies upon the steel industry and that the Minister has now obliged us, except

in the case of subsidies upon imported materials. [Interruption.]

Mr. Silverman: I am really very grateful to the hon. Member for Keighley for the information he has given me, although I understand that everybody else in the House denies its accuracy. Suppose he were right. Do I understand that all those gentlemen and institutions propose to hand back to the Treasury all the subsidies that they have had so far?

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I agree with the views that have been expressed from this side of the House as to the undesirability of subsidies in general. They are, in fact, the antithesis of free enterprise, and they have never been used in the past, so far as I can remember, except in exceptional circumstances and to combat a particular and temporary evil.
There is another aspect of the subsidy question to which I do not think attention has hitherto been drawn. It will be noted that the articles to which a subsidy may be applied under the Clause are:
any imported materials for the purpose of the carrying on … of any of the activities specified in … the Second Schedule to this Act.
The materials used in any of the activities under the Second Schedule are very many indeed. If one takes a census of all the stuff that goes into the production of rolled sections of steel, or pig-iron, or activities under the Second Schedule, one would cover a very wide field indeed. I can think of limestone, coke, alloys and so on, and fuel oil. The field over which we are ranging to which subsidy can be applied is therefore very great. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether I am in a fallacy in the second part of my argument. I do not believe that I am.
The second part of my argument is this: Let us assume a rather exaggerated state of affairs for the purposes of this argument. Coke was in very short supply for a very long time. Raw coke is expanding production. It might very well come about that imported coke is brought into this country for the purpose of manufacturing pig-iron and that the price of the imported coke is higher than that of the home-produced coke. Surely there would be a very great incentive to the Treasury and to the National Coal


Board to arrange that home coke prices should rise. Then the subsidy would disappear. The Minister look s disgusted at that suggestion. If he does not want to take coke as an example, let him take any other material which comes into Second Schedule activities.
There is another danger, apart from the straightforward subsidy danger. It is the tendency for home prices to rise, perhaps artificially, in order to limit or even to eliminate the subsidy on imported goods. In addition to the argument which has been adduced against the desirability of the subsidy and for its elimination, there is that further argument to be taken into account.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: The Minister said correctly that this Clause was permissive. He seemed to indicate that there is something rather wrong in passing a Clause merely because it is permissive. What is this Clause really intended to permit? My fear and that of many hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House is of the continuation of the subsidy over a long period continuously. If this is a permissive Clause, it acts as a sort of smokescreen. The Minister has appeared before us as the great champion of flexibility in the working of the Clause, but flexibility can become pliancy and pliancy weakness, right back to the boneless wonder.
I feel that there is great danger in having a permissive Clause. It is likely to affect the outlook of the Minister and his advisers when they come at a particular point of time to decide: "Shall we come out into the cold wind of competition by stopping the subsidy or shall we continue the subsidy under the permissive Clause? It might make things a great deal easier for us." It is a sort of gadget Clause, like one of those electric toasters which is always popping up an extra piece of toast which one eats when one ought not to.
4.30 p.m.
I cannot help feeling, that the arguments of the Minister and his colleagues are not directed to the protection of the public purse. There is no doubt that the moment of decision as to whether to take off or to continue a subsidy is likely to be prolonged in the direction of continuing it unnecessarily as long as a Clause of this nature is present in the Bill and

the Minister does not have to come forward and justify before the House the subsidy which might have been taken off.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): We have had some complaint, I understand, about the fact that the time allotted for the discussion of this Bill on the Report stage is insufficient. It has occurred to me that, as I imagine the Opposition are labouring under a misconception, if I intervene now it may shorten the discussion on this point. My right hon. Friend the Minister has, in fact, said all that can be said in reply to the criticisms that have been made.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It seems quite obvious to me in listening to the Debate since I have returned to the Chamber that what he said has failed, not for the first time, to sink in opposite.

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman was not here. He does not know what the Minister said.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The plain question I would put to the Opposition is whether they want the remaining subsidies to come off now or to continue until such time as it seems desirable, owing to the reduction in the price of imported finished steel, that that would be a good thing to do. The Opposition seem to forget that in their view the Bill will never be implemented even if it becomes an Act; in other words, that in 1950 they themselves will be where we now are. It would be very unfortunate if in that unlikely event they found themselves in the situation where it was highly desirable in the national interest that these limited subsidies should continue for a temporary period and they would not be able to put that into operation.
Therefore, it seems to me that, from their point of view, the pressure they are now bringing is short-sighted, and it appears to us that it would be absurd from the national point of view, whatever Governemnt were in office, to take the Clause out of the Bill. As the Minister pointed out, it is permissive. It is obvious that for a period yet it will be essential for these reduced subsidies to be paid. That being so, we cannot for


a moment agree to their deletion from the Bill.
I want to make a final point which my right hon. Friend did not make but which he would desire me to make. The purpose of Clause 5 is to avoid the unsound method of using the Appropriation Act. These subsidies are a new expenditure and up to now they have not received statutory authority. They should receive such authority and we should not use the Appropriation Act for this expenditure. The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who once occupied the position I now occupy, will agree that it is highly desirable that statutory authority should be sought and obtained for an expenditure of this kind and that we should not year after year use the device of the Appropriation Act only, for an expenditure of this magnitude and kind. I hope the Opposition will realise that what we are doing here is reasonable, that the provision is permissive and that at the moment it is essential and no one on either side of the House can say when the time will arrive when we can dispense with these subsidies.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman has been a little disingenuous in the observations he has addressed to the House on this matter. He first of all told us what the Minister said, but as he was not present I do not see that he has any method of knowing what the Minister had said, unless it be that the doctrine of common responsibility must be extended to the doctrine of the common brief. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that another Government might be returned which would require, in the national interest, to pay subsidies of this kind for special reasons, and that if Clause 5 were omitted that would not be possible. Surely he knows that without this Bill and without Clause 5 the subsidies have been paid year after year.
Therefore, the whole of that part of his argument—I am coming to the latter part of his argument—can only have been intended to deceive the House of Commons because it was absolutely fallacious or based upon a lack of knowledge. These subsidies have been paid year after year, and similar subsidies have been paid, and it is not true to say that if this Bill fell to the ground, or if

for some reason vesting date never took place, or if there was a change of Government the new Government, whatever its complexion, whether of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends or of my hon. Friends or of all of us together—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—might not be able to do so. I am simply stating the logic of the facts; that any Government can perfectly easily do this.
The right hon. Gentleman went on in the second part of his speech—it absolutely contradicted the first part—to say that the Government could easily do this and has been doing this through the device of the Supplementary Estimate and the Appropriation Act.

Mr. Mikardo: Surely the right hon. Gentleman, whom we all know to be a man of the highest honour, is not saying that he would support the action of any future Governmnet of which he was a Member in applying subsidies after having today voted against the application of subsidies in this Bill?

Mr. Macmillan: I am grateful to the tribute to my honour but this is a matter partly of honour and partly of just common sense. The Clause does not make the smallest difference to the power of the Government to make or not to make a subsidy. The right hon. Gentleman did not attend the first part of the Debate and did not hear the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). We have had during the war on the coal subsidies and in the case of a great number of things which come to us in Supplementary Estimates—

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) argued that where we had a subsidy so large and permanent. we ought not to use the Supplementary Estimates, but ought to have a Clause in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has himself argued that the subsidy is, in the sense used at any rate, large and permanent. Why then is he opposing the Clause?

Mr. Macmillan: I am just coming to that. I am very glad that the hon. Member has helped so much with my speech, as he so often does in the interruptions which he makes. They are always the making of my speeches. I look to his presence before I even dare to rise, so helpful is he.
I was explaining that it was not true to say that in the event of some sudden emergency, special need or national requirement which was commonly accepted in all parts of the House or by the Government of the day, the deletion of this Clause would make it impossible to pay the subsidies. I was merely pointing out that the obvious argument that that was true was that they have been paid without the Bill having been introduced at all. The Financial Secretary's argument was that we could not have the subsidy until we had the Bill. We all know that we have had the subsidy and we have not yet got the Bill.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This is really a tiny point. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but what I think I said and what I desired to convey to the House was that although it is true that subsidies have been paid in this way it is much better—I know the Opposition prefer this—that it should be regularised in a Bill of this kind as we happen to be passing it.

Mr. Macmillan: This is a completely new argument. We just happen to be passing a Bill about iron and steel—we are walking down the street and happen to be passing—and so we slip in a Clause of this kind. Again, the right hon. Gentleman does not do justice even to his own speech. In the second part of it he stated a quite different argument. In the first part of his speech he tried to say—it was quite untruthful and was a pure piece of partisanship—that if the Clause were rejected, it would not be possible for a Government of any complexion, should national circumstances require it in a particular year, to pay a subsidy for the importation of finished steel or any other of the articles which enter into the manufacture of steel. That was false and he knows it to be false and he now repudiates it.
I quite agree with the second part of his speech. That was much more effective because it was directed to the special subject we are discussing. It is, as he said, something of a technical point. In the second part of his speech he said it was a doctrine—one might call it an orthodox doctrine—that where the subsidies had to be paid year after year and they became almost continuous and an accepted part of the system, it was desirable not to use

the procedure of the Supplementary Estimate and the subsequent Appropriation Act but to accept the subsidies as something built into the whole structure and take statutory power.
It is on that point that we feel this is a dangerous implication. We know that in the period of the war and the period immediately following the war, and in the confused state of European production—which we hope, as things develop, will become more regularised and better organised—it has been necessary to have these special subsidies, but we believe it to be desirable for that period to pass away and we believe it to be desirable that the economy of Europe should be so organised as to make this kind of arrangement unnecessary.
For five days I have been sitting with a large number of very distinguished European economists in discussions from the point of view of the basic industries and their organisation so as to avoid this national use of the subsidy to support the economy of one country without regard to the economy of another. I recognise the need for subsidies on occasions, in some years, but I regret that at this very moment, when, from the point of view of the whole of European economy, those interested in it are hoping to avoid this kind of national measure, we should include it in a Statute.
I emphasise this particularly from the general point of view of the undesirability of this method of subsidy between one country and another and the desirability of returning to a much better-balanced economy. This is a kind of symbol. So long as we have to do these things and the Minister comes each year to the House of Commons to say that, owing to the war or the results of the war or to the dislocation he must ask for this—then at any rate it is a definite action on the part of the Government, coming to the House and giving the reasons thus making it an abnormal and special action.
But if we use this power in the Bill, I fear we are appearing to give—I do not put it higher than that—some kind of regularisation to a system which most of us hope will gradually disappear from our economy and will no longer be necessary. For those reasons, among others, we have opened this discussion. It is quite untrue to say that the omission of this Clause would make it impossible to


pay a subsidy, as indeed the Financial Secretary stated in the latter part of his speech. Upon those general grounds, I think, on the whole, we have been wise to raise this matter.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Attewell: I believe the Opposition have failed to understand the difference between, on the one hand, the State undertaking something which belongs to the people as a whole and on the other hand a private industry. I formed my point of view not only from what I have heard this afternoon but also from what I heard during those Sittings of the Standing Committee. If I may I should like to say to the Opposition that although they are attempting, so they say, to improve the Bill, I have very grave doubts whether that is the real purpose with which they are discussing this Clause this afternoon. I feel they are trying to make it almost impossible for the steel industry of this country to work in the efficient manner in which it should work.
We are bound to recognise that subsidies have been in existence for many years in this country. Private industry had to come to the Government of the day pointing out that fluctuation in the price of steel on the world market, with keen competition from overseas countries, was such that it had an effect upon the commodities they were producing and that unless they could be given assistance by the Government, they would be compelled to unite with foreign competitors in the form of cartels.
I maintain that a State enterprise running the steel industry must have this Clause. We must bear in mind, so far as the Second Schedule is concerned, that it is those materials—iron ore and so on—which form the basis for the subsequent operations, right down to our machinery and even to our household utensils. The return to the manufacturer is not in the winning of the iron ore and the making of the pig iron so much as in the making of steel articles and of the steel production which follows in later processes.
I suspect that some of the objections, or at least one of them, of the Opposition this afternoon is the fact that many industries will be outside the scope of this

Bill. They will be receiving certain of the raw materials. If that is so, we are bound to consider the question of scrap, certain semi-finished steel and certain materials which are necessary in order to make a special kind of steel—stainless steel, for instance. Some of those commodities are in short supply in the world market, and therefore when this country buys those materials it is at the mercy of the world markets. If we are to keep the price of steel steady in this country we have to remember that it is quite possible that at a given time of the year a higher price must be paid for the raw materials. If the higher prices for the raw materials which we purchased from abroad were immediately communicated to the articles being produced, that would mean that our exporters of machinery and that sort of thing would be placed outside the world markets.
In Committee the Opposition attempted to move an Amendment—if my memory is correct—which proposed that the steel industry should balance its books one year with another.

Mr. Erroll: indicated dissent.

Mr. Attewell: The hon. Member will remember the discussions which took place. If we had to balance our books one year with the next, we should find that we were bound to increase the price of steel. I suggest that not only is it right in the change-over that the subsidy should be in the Bill but that it must be retained by a State undertaking in order that we may use—

Mr. Erroll: If I may correct the hon. Member, it is stated in the Bill that the steel industry must balance its accounts "taking one year with another." It was the Opposition who drew attention to the absurdity of that conception.

Mr. Attewell: I am grateful for the hon. Member's correction. I was doubtful whether the Amendment was accepted. Probably the hon. Member will remember that I asked for an interpretation of the phrase "taking one year with another" and that I made a contribution with the object of proving that the words meant nothing when we got into a court of law.

Mr. Erroll: Then the hon. Member was on our side.

Mr. Attewell: The point I am trying to establish is this: having said that we must balance our books "one year with another" we must realise what is the situation. If the price of the commodities which we want from overseas is extremely high, we are bound, according to the Bill, to increase the price of steel to those who are manufacturing the articles in that year, or at least in the next year. I say, therefore, that we must, as a State undertaking and in the main a State monopoly, retain the power within the orbit of the steel industry so to adjust the finances that the price of steel can be kept level in order that we may compete with overseas competitors and thus bring the full benefit of a State steel undertaking to the people of this country.

Mr. Charles Williams: I have listened with care to the whole of this argument and to the speech of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell). I hope he will excuse me and not think me discourteous if I do not go into the very complicated points of the steel subsidy. I rise for two purposes. First, it is only fair in a matter of this sort that some representative of the South-West of England should put the point of view of the taxpayers. [Interruption.] Well, I think I can fairly claim to represent part of that area and. probably, a larger number of electors than most people in this House. It is only fair that the point of view of those people should be put. We are not necessarily for or against subsidies, but we say very clearly—and this is why I dislike the Clause—that the Clause is vague and indefinite and that, if anything, it gives too much power to the Minister and too little to Parliament.
I have followed the various points very closely indeed and am convinced there is only one way in which a new subsidy should be granted. The subsidy may not be a very big one. As I understand the Clause from the Minister's explanation, it is a subsidy for goods coming into this country which are at too high a price for the steel industry here to be able to work economically. I say quite frankly that if those goods are to be subsidised, there can be only one possible justification for it; that is, if the Minister will come to Parliament and get the leave of the House of Commons

to do it directly. That must be the right position in a matter of this kind.
I am wondering however—perhaps the Minister or somebody else will explain this—what exactly will be the position if the prices of the foreign goods are put up very high and are built up by a subsidy from a foreign country. I realise that there are very many complications in these matters and I do not necessarily expect the Minister to answer such a complicated question; a simple one such as might be put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) would be an easier matter. In dealing with subsidies, I agree very much with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) that, taking the wider view—and this is another reason for rejecting the Clause—we should think of the international situation. I am convinced, as an ordinary representative and taxpayer, that we have no justification in supporting a Clause of this kind, which gives subsidies where it would be very difficult for the ordinary Member to know what is happening. It is far better that the Minister should have to come directly to the House of Commons on this matter.
My second point is this. In the House of Commons there has always been a considerable feeling, sometimes for, and sometimes against, subsidies; sometimes one party has believed in a subsidy, sometimes it has been another party; but one thing has always been certain about subsidies, and that is that the official Liberal Party would be against them. Every one of us today must feel very sad that we have no official help from the official Liberal Party. In the old days, when there was any mention of subsidies, they would all be here. Today they have been absent with a ghastly unanimity, which so often attends their affairs in the House. I hope that the hon. Member who is now the leading Member of the great Liberal Party will have a few words to say on this matter of subsidy. I am, of course, bound to put the Liberal point of view as well as my own, for the very simple reason that in my constituency and in many other parts of the West I have very great support from Liberals. [Interruption.] Oh, yes. Over a period of years I have had very great support from them, as any Member of one of the


Plymouth Divisions could tell hon. Gentlemen opposite.
In those circumstances, unless there is an overwhelming case for a subsidy, remembering that Liberal opinion officially must be against it, and knowing that the ordinary man in the street does not want to pay a subsidy unless it is certain to be a great national advantage, I am bound to vote against the Clause, especially in view of what the Minister has just said, and still more in view of what was said by the Financial Secretary, who always contrives to be so very helpful to the Opposition and so very harmful to the Government. It is quite obvious that the Government intend to use the Clause to camouflage subsidies whenever they have a possible chance to do so.

Mr. Mikardo: I join with the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) in deploring the absence of the Liberal Party from our discussions, and I enjoy very much the rare experience of agreeing with him about anything at all. I wish to direct my observations, however, principally to two points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan). He suggested, and did so very strongly, with that maidenly air of injured innocence which he sometimes affects, that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had been deliberately misleading the House. I suggest that he himself, perhaps not deliberately, used what was actually a most misleading argument.
He referred to the international implications of the subsidisation of the industry under this Clause. What he appeared to quote the European economists, with whom he has been having discussions, as suggesting was that this was something that interfered with the free flow of international trade. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that what many people are worrying about today are such things as tariff barriers and import quotas, which do interfere with the free flow of trade in that way. If he will think for a moment he will realise that the payment by subsidy of the difference between higher import and lower home prices not only does not interfere with, but actually facilitates, the free flow of trade, because it makes it possible for countries to import from other

countries commodities which they would not otherwise be able to import.
The burden of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that although the subsidies were all right, perhaps, during and immediately after the war, just at present, when we are trying to get Western Europe working more closely economically than ever before, it would be wrong to interfere with the flow of trade between Western European countries. That argument falls completely to the ground. If one accepts, as I am trying to do, that, far from doing that, the subsidies would have the opposite effect, I am wondering how the right hon. Gentleman will square it with his conscience that he believed in these subsidies when they were paid to private owners in order to help them pay dividends to their shareholders but does not believe in them when they are being paid in the national interest as a whole.
That brings me to another part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He pointed out with great force—although, if I may say so, a little repetitively—that of course, even if the Clause were not in the Bill, it would be possible for a future Government of which he was a Member, or any other future Government, to continue the practice, or to restart the practice, of paying subsidies. That would, of course, be possible, but, as I tried to infer in an intervention whilst the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, as far as he is concerned it would be most immoral of any Government of which he was a Member so to do with his support, after he had voted against the inclusion of Clause 5 in the Bill.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The hon. Member should not misrepresent what I said. The argument is not whether in a particular year there should or should not be a subsidy. The argument is whether this Clause should be introduced using a statutory authority rather than the procedure of the Supplementary Estimate and the Appropriation Act. If the hon. Gentleman misrepresents what I said he is doing so deliberately.

Mr. Mikardo: I am not doing anything of the sort. The right hon. Gentleman is now introducing quite a fresh point. He cannot get away from the fact that he suggested that some possible Govern-


ment in the future of which he might be a member—as he said, a Government composed of his friends or perhaps a Coalition Government—might want to pay a subsidy. The right hon. Gentleman must already be at odds with any conscience he has by opposing this Clause after he has supported subsidies in the past. Suppose he were a member of some other Government in 1950, and that Government, with his support, then proceeded to reinstate the sort of subsidy which this Clause permits; what sort of answer would he give to any questioner who put to him the point that he supported this subsidy when it was paid to private owners, that he opposed it when it was proposed to be paid to a public corporation, and that he is once again proposing, hypothetically in 1950, to pay it to private owners?

Mr. Macmillan: I can only give the answer; I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the understanding to know what it means. The answer is very simple. I said that we were opposing this machinery—which he perfectly well understands, although he is purposely misrepresenting it—giving a statutory authority, and it would be within the conscience of myself or my colleagues or any other person to say that in a particular year the Government of the day should use the machinery which is open to them, of the Supplementary Estimate followed by the Appropriation Act, to make legal the subsidy that they proposed, and justify it in the year in which it is proposed before the House of Commons.

Mr. Mikardo: I can only imagine that I get my understanding of the English language from sources higher than those of the right hon. Gentleman. At any rate, I followed very closely what he was trying to say. I can see quite clearly that he is now shifting his ground completely from the ground which he took in the main burden of his speech. In exactly the same way as he accused, wrongly, I think, the Financial Secretary of misleading the House, he himself, whether deliberately or otherwise, used arguments which most certainly were misleading.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I doubt very much whether the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), if he took specific examples,

could prove that subsidies were of continuing assistance to international trade. During a time of war when we need to get things quickly, it is possible to stimulate the flow of trade over a short period by means of subsidies, but if the subsidies are retained for any length of time all that happens is that the international costing and pricing structure is altered and trade becomes fixed on the same level.
If the hon Gentleman went into specific examples I do not think he could possibly prove that continuously throughout the payment of a subsidy international trade was stimulated. On the contrary, it is a weapon of protection and of nationalism. It is inconsistent with a friendly international trading society such as that to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) had in mind when making his speech. We welcome the Government's decision to reduce iron and steel subsidies. In response to the invitation of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I say for myself that I should like to see subsidies taken off altogether. They are not the right device to use at this stage of our development when we are seeking to get an ever closer relationship with other countries.
I really rose to press a rather more narrow point on the right hon. Gentleman in case there is an opportunity of a further Government reply. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply is present; he helped us yesterday, but so far he has not done so today. I hope that we shall be able to draw him into action. What is the use of giving to the Iron and Steel Corporation a continuing power to ask the Government for subsidies? Under Clause 31 the Iron and Steel Corporation has to make ends meet "one year with another"; it must make neither an excessive loss nor an excessive profit. Fundamentally, that is quite right for a State monopoly, although we have points of criticism on Clause 31. The effect of Clause 5, however, is to undermine Clause 31 in enabling the Iron and Steel Corporation to recoup itself out of Government funds every time it fears that it will not be able to meet the obligations imposed by Clause 31.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give some attention to that point. If it were not for Clause 5,


Clause 31 could be carried out, but Clause 5 is a standing invitation to the Iron and Steel Corporation to come to the Government year after year for the payment of subsidies in respect of its trading, and it is also a standing invitation to it to fail to carry out—

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord because he is completely misleading the House. It is quite impossible under Clause 5 for any subsidy to be paid in respect of any loss made by the Corporation. All it enables the Corporation to receive is a subsidy in respect of any steel or semi-finished steel which it has to import and sell to consumers in this country and which it has brought above the home price of steel. The Corporation cannot possibly recoup itself from the Treasury for any loss which it may make.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I know that Clause 5 deals with the import of iron and steel. If the Corporation can go annually to the Government and say "Pay us a subsidy in respect of a loss we are making on overseas trading," that is a means whereby it can recoup itself and avoid fulfilling the prime duty laid upon it by Clause 31. It would be much better to have a Government company such as Iron and Steel Disposals Limited, B.I.S.C. or a company to be formed specifically by the Corporation, and let it make a loss which can be seen; then either through Supplementary Estimates or otherwise, Parliament can make up the loss annually. For the Corporation, a part of whose business may be internal, to have this power to be recouped annually by the Government on one specific aspect of its trading is entirely wrong.

Mr. Attewell: Would the noble Lord be kind enough to visualise this situation: If the Corporation purchase finished steel from overseas markets and then sell that steel to firms not within the Third Schedule—for instance, some of the firms in Sheffield who require special steel for the special articles they manufacture—what is there to prevent the Corporation from charging the price which they pay on the foreign markets plus an additional price in respect of profit, and thereby showing no loss whatsoever? As the Corporation has the monoply, there can be no loss by the Corporation in respect of overseas steel. The only loss that can arise is on home-produced steel.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am not sure that I fully follow the implications of the hon. Member's point. If he really wants an answer, perhaps he will get it from me on another occasion. The Corporation has not got a monopoly on importations. It will be perfectly proper for a private company or for a Government company to by-pass the Corporation.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I understood the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) to make the suggestion that special steel which could not be made in Sheffield was obtained from abroad. That is entirely wrong. Any special steel that is needed in Sheffield can be made in Sheffield.

Mr. Attewell: The hon. Member has misunderstood what I said. I did not make any such suggestion.

Mr. Roberts: I understood him to make a suggestion that steel which could not be made in Sheffield had to be obtained from abroad.
I should like to revert to the question of subsidies. This is the first time in any nationalisation Measure that the question of a subsidy for a nationalised undertaking has been introduced. I think that the father of nationalisation, the present Secretary of State for War, who paved the way for these Measures, would disapprove of subsidies on principle, because the whole essence of nationalisation is that the Government take power in the national interest to deal with the finances of the industry.
With regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), I would point out that there is a distinction between a subsidy to a private enterprise undertaking and a subsidy to a nationalised undertaking. The reason for that is that the Government have complete control over the nationalised industry, which they have not got in the case of a private enterprise industry. Their only method of imposing the national interest on a privately controlled interest is through a subsidy, which is not the case with a nationalised industry. It seems quite unnecessary, with the powers the Minister has under this Bill, for him to ask for a subsidy of this kind. The powers of the Minister, contained in the rather curious phrase, "the public interest," give him all that he needs.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in one of those rays of light which came into the Committee stage, gave the answer to this problem. He said that the reason why subsidies were paid during the war and have been continued was bound up with the wage structure of the industry. I think that he was correct when he made that remark. The House should realise that the wage structure was bound up at that time with the price of steel, and the Government of the day introduced the subsidy so as not to alter the wage structure agreement in the industry. That is a purely artificial arrangement, and there is no reason why it should continue in times of peace. If the subsidies have been built up on that artificial arrangement, there is no reason why the Minister should make it a permanent feature by introducing it into a nationalisation Measure.
I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), that behind

this is a desire to cover losses. Not only are we dealing with importations of steel, but also of coke. I would remind Members opposite who come from mining areas that there is a danger under this Clause for the Steel Board to import coke at prices which under-cut the prices in this country, which is very dangerous. I suggest that the real reason for this is the knowledge of the losses of the Coal Board, the knowledge of the losses of the nationalised railways, and the possible losses as a result of gas nationalisation.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Member allow me?

Mr. Roberts: The Guillotine falls in a quarter of an hour, and if the hon. and learned Member wishes to make a speech I now give him the opportunity to do so.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 149.

Division No. 111.]
AYES
[5.16 p. m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Cocks, F. S.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Albu, A. H.
Collindridge, F
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Collins, V. J
Greenwood, A. W J. (Heywood)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Colman, Miss G. M
Grey, C. F.


Alpass, J. H.
Cook, T. F.
Grierson, E.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Attewell, H. C.
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Austin, H. Lewis
Grossman, R. H S
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Awbery, S. S
Cullen, Mrs.
Guest, Dr. L. Hader


Ayles, W. H.
Daggar, G
Gunter, R. J


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B
Daines, P.
Gey W. H


Bacon, Miss A
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Balfour, A.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hale, Leslie


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil


Barstow. P. G.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R


Barton, C.
Deer, G.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Battley, J. R.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hardman, D. R.


Bechervaise, A. E
Bobbie, W.
Hardy, E. A


Benson, G.
Dodds, N. N
Harrison, J


Beswick, F
Driberg, T E. N.
Hastings. Dr Somerville


Bing, G. H. C
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Haworth, J


Binns, J.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Kingswinford)


Blackburn, A. R
Dye, S.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Blenkinsop, A
Edelman, M.
Herbison, Miss M


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Hicks, G.


Boardman, H.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Hobson, C. R


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Holman, P


Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pl Exch'ge)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Horabin, T L


Braman, E. A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Ewart, R
Hoy, J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Fairhurst, F.
Hubbard, T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Farthing, W. J
Hudson, J. H (Ealing, W.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Brown, T. J, (Ince)
Field, Capt. W J
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)


Burden, T. W.
Follick, M.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Burke, W. A.
Forman, J. C.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Callaghan, James
Fraser, T. [...]amilton)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Freeman, J (Watford)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Chamberlain, R. A
Ganley, Mrs. C S
Janner, B


Chafer, D.
Gibbins, J
Jay, D. P. T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gilzean, A
Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E)


Cluse, W. S
Glanville, J E (Consett)
Jenkins, R. H.


Cobb, F. A.
Gooch, E. G.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)




Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Murray, J. D
Solley, L. J.


Jones, Jack (Bolton)
Nally, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Naylor, T E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Keenan, W.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Sparks, J. A.


Kenyon, C.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Steele, T.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


King, E. M.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Swingler, S.


Kinley, J.
O1dfield, W. H
Sylvester, G. O.


Kirkwood Rt. Hon. D.
Oliver, G. H.
Symonds, A. L.


Lang, G.
Orbach, M.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Lavers, S.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Leonard, W.
Parker, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Leslie, J. R.
Parkin, B. T.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Levy, B. W.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Thurtle, Ernest


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Timmons, J.


Lewis, J. (Balton)
Pearl, T. F.
Titterington, M. F.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Perrins, W.
Tolley, L.


Lindgren, G. S.
Piratin, P.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Popplewell, E.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Logan, D. G
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Vernon, Maj. W F.


Lyne, A. W.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Walkden, E.


McAdam, W.
Price, M. Philips
Walker, G. H.


McAllister, G.
Pritt, D. N.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


McEntee, V. La T.
Proctor, W. T.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


McGhee, H. G
Pryde, D. J.
Warbey, W. N.


Mack, J. D.
Pursey, Comdr H
Watkins, T. E.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Randall, H. E.
Watson, W M


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Ranger, J.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


McLeavy, F.
Rankin, J.
Weitzman, D.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirring)
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Raid, T. (Swindon)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Rhodes, H.
West, D. G.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wheatley, Rt. HP. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Willey, E. T. (Sunderland)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Scollan, T.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Mathers. Rt. Hon. George
Scott-Elliot, W
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Mayhew, C. P.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Mellish R. J.
Sharp, Granville
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Messer, F.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Dan Valley)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Willis, E.


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Mitchison, G. R.
Simmons, C. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Monslow, W.
Skeffington, A. M.
Woods, G. S.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Wyatt, W.


Morley, R.
Skinnard, F. W.
Yates, V. F.


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)



Mort, D. L.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moyle, A.
Snow, J. W.
Mr. Richards and Mr. Richard Adams.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
De la Bere, R.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A V


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Haughton, S. G


Assheton., Rt. Hon. R.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Head, Brig. A. H


Astor, Hon. M.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C


Baldwin, A. E
Drayson, G. B
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Barlow, Sir J.
Drewe, C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Dugdate, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hollis, M. C


Beecnman, N. A
Duthie, W. S.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)


Birch, Nigel
Eccles, D. M.
Hope, Lord J.


Bossom, A. C.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Howard, Hon. A.


Bower, N.
Erroll, F. J.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R S. (Southport)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr, J. G.
Fraser, H. C. P (Stone)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow. C.)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Jeffreys, General Sir G


Buchan-Hepburn, P. C. T.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham


Bullock Capt. M.
Gammans, L. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Butcher, H. W.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G


Carson, E
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Challen, C.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Gridley, Sir A.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Harden, J. R. E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Linstead, H. N.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Lipson, D. L.







Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Neill, Sir William (Belfast, N.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Low, A. R. W.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Nicholson, G.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'dd'rn, S)


Lucas-Tooth, S. H.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Teeling, William


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Odey, G. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmoutn)


McCallum, Maj. D.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Thorp, Brigadier R A. F


MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Touche, G. C.


McFarlane, C. S.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Turton, R. H.


M.ackeson, Brig. H. R.
Pickthorn, K.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Vane, W. M. F


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Ward, Hon. G. R


MacLeod, J.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclosall)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset. E.)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
While, Sir D. (Fareham)


Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Marples, A. E.
Scott, Lord W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbrilge)


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Shephard, S. (Newark)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Mellor, Sir J.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Molson, A. H. E.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
York, G.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Smithers, Sir W.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Snadden, W. M.



Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Spearman, A. C. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Mr. Studholme and Major Conant


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Clause 6.—(APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES TO REPRESENT INTERESTS OF CONSUMERS).

Amendment made: In page 6, line 36, leave out Clause 6.—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

Clause 7.—(COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LAND).

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 7, line 28, to leave out Clause 7.
This Clause was not discussed at all in Committee, and now there appear to be exactly two minutes to discuss it here, which shows the complete farce into which these proceedings have degenerated. This Clause, which is of the greatest importance, gives the Corporation power to acquire any land and any building of any sort at any time, and to put a competitor out of business. They can acquire land or buildings and hem in anyone whom they wish to prevent trading. Yet the Government come forward with the sham argument that they wish to preserve free competition between the Corporation and their companies and others left in private enterprise. This Clause is a complete travesty of that argument. The Corporation are not a public utility. They are supposed to be a commercial under

taking. Provisions of this sort were not put into the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act or the Transport Act. Yet they are in this Bill. I wish I had more time to develop my argument.

Mr. Erroll: I beg formally to second the Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I have only a moment or two—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Strauss: There was such prolonged discussion on the last Opposition Amendment.

Mr. Erroll: An hour and a half.

Mr. Strauss: It is plain that the Corporation must have compulsory powers, with the Minister's consent, to enter land where necessary, for the extension of a steel works where, maybe, the landlord was holding the Corporation up to ransom.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the second word 'any,' in line 29, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 313 Noes, 154.

Division No.112.]
AYES
[5.30 p. m.


Acland., Sir Richard
Attewell, H. C.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Austin, H. Lewis
Barstow, P. G


Albu, A. H.
Awbery, S. S.
Barton, C.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Ayles, W. H.
Battley, J. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Bechervaise, A E


Alpass, J. H.
Bacon, Miss A.
Benson, G.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Balfour, A.
Berwick, F




Bing, G. H. C.
Hale, Leslie
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Binns, J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Blackburn, A. R
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mort, D. L.


Blyton, W. R.
Hardman, D. R.
Moyle, A.


Boardman, H.
Hardy, E. A.
Murray, J. D.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Harrison, J.
Nally, W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Naylor, T. E.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Haworth, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bramall, E. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Herbison, Miss M.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hicks, G.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brantford)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hobson, C. R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Brown, George (Belper)
Holman, P.
O'Brien, T.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Oldfield, W. H.


Burden, T. W.
Horabin, T. L.
Oliver, G. H.


Burke, W. A.
Houghton, A L. N. D.
Orbach, M.


Callaghan, James
Hoy, J.
Paget, R. T.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hubbard, T.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Chafer, D
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Pargiter, G. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)
Parker, J.


Cluse, W. S
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Parkin, B. T.


Cobb, F. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Cocks, F. S.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Collick, P.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pearson, A.


Callindridge, F.
Janner, B.
Pearl, T. F.


Collins, V. J.
Jay, D. P. T.
Perrins, W.


Colman, Miss G. M
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Piratin, P.


Cook, T. F.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Popplewell, E.


Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Jenkins, R. H.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Crawley, A.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Price, M. Philips


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Jack (Bolton)
Pritt, D. N.


Cullen, Mrs.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Proctor, W. T.


Dagger, G.
Keenan, W.
Pryde, D. J.


Daines, P.
Kenyon., C.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Dalton, Rt. Han. H.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Randall, H. E.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
King, E. M.
Ranger, J


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Rankin, J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kinley, J.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirkwood, Rt. Han. D.
Reeves, J.


Deer, G.
Lang, G.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lavers, S.
Rhodes, H.


Dobbie, W.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Donovan, T.
Leonard, W.
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Leslie, J. R.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Levy, B. W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sargood, R.


Dye, S.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Scollan, T.


Edelman, M.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lindgren, G. S.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Sharp, Granville


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Logan, D. G.
Shawcress, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lyne, A. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Evans, John.(Ogmore)
McAdam, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McAllister, G.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Ewart, R.
McEntee, V. La T.
Simmons, C J.


Fairhurst, F.
McGhee, H. G
Skeffington, A. M.


Farthing, W. J.
MaGovern, J.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Fernyhough, E.
Mack, J. D.
Skinnard, F. W.


Field, Capt. W. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E.)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Follick, M.
McLeavy, F
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Forman, J. C.
Mapherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Snow, J. W.


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Solley, L. J.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sorensen, R. W.


Gibbins, J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Gilzean, A.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Sparks, J. A.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Steele, T.


Gooch, E. G.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
&amp;lathers, Rt. Hon. George
Swingler, S


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mayhew, C. P.
Sylvester, G. O


Grey, C. F
Mellish. R. J.
Symonds, A. L.


Grierson, E.
Messer, F.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mikarda, Ian
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Griffiths, W. D. (Mass Side)
Millifigton, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gunter, R. J.
Monslow, W.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Guy, W. H.
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Thurtle, Ernest


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morley, R.
Timmons, J.







Titterington, M. F.
Weitzman, D.
Williams, W. T (Hammersmith. S.)


Tolley, L.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Willis, E


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Turner-Samuels, M.
West, D. G.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A


Vernon, Maj. W F
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)
Woods, G. S


Viant, S P.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Wyatt, W.


Walkden, E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Yates, V. F


Walker, G. H.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A B
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)



Warbey, W. N.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Watkins, T. E.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Watson, W M.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Mr. Wilkins.


Webb, M (Bradford, C)
Williams, Rt Hon. T. (Don Valley)





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V
Odey, G. W


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Haughton, S G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Head, Brig. A. H
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C
Peake, Rt Hon. O.


Astor, Hon. M.
Henderson, John (Catheart)
Peto, Brig, C. H. M


Baldwin, A. E
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hope, Lord J.
Ponsonby, Col. C E


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Howard, Hon. A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Beechman, N. A
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ramsay, Maj. S


Birch, Nigel
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bossom, A. C.
Hurd, A.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Robertson, Sir D (Streatham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool. S.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W
Scott, Lord W


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Shephard, S (Newark)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)


Bullock Capt. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Butcher, H. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Smithers, Sir W


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A (S'ffen W'ld'n)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Snadden, W. M


Carson, E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Spearman, A. C. M


Challen, C.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Clarke, Col. R. S
Linstead, H. N.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col, G
Lipson, D. L.
Studholme, H. G.


Cole, T. L.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Sutcliffe, H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F C
Low, A R. W.
Taylor, C S (Eastbourne)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


De la Bare, R.
Lucas-Tooth, S. H.
Teeling, William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lyttelton, Rt. Hen. O
Thomas, Ivor (Keightey)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, C N


Drayson, G. B
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M S
Thorp, Brigadier R A. F


Drewe, C.
McFarlane, C. S.
Touche, G. C.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turton, R. H.


Duthie, W. S.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Eccles, D. M.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Vane, W. M. F


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Macpherson., N. (Dumfries)
Wadsworth, G.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter
Maitland, Comdr. J W
Ward, Hon. G. R


Erroll, F. J.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Mellor, Sir J
White, J. B (Canterbury)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams. C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gammans, L. D.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Winterton, Rt. Han. Earl


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)
York, C.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gomme-Duncan, Cal. A
Neill, Sir William (Belfast. N.)



Gridley, Sir A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harden, J. R. E.
Nicholson, G.
Major Conant


Hare, Hon. J H. (Woodbridge)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Brigadier Mackeson.


Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ)
Noble, Comdr A. H P

It being after Half-past Five o'Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order, successively to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Half-past Five o'Clock at this day's Sitting.

Amendments made: in page 7, line 29, leave out from "for," to "the," in line 30, In line 31, after "functions," insert:
or the carrying on of any activity by a publicly-owned company.

In line 47, leave out "omitted," and insert:
deemed not to apply to the Corporation."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

Clause 11.—(TRANSFER TO CORPORATION OF SECURITIES OF SCHEDULED COMPANIES.)

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 8, line 28, to leave out from "of," to "or," in line 29, and to insert, "January, nineteen hundred and fifty-one."
The object of this Amendment is to postpone the vesting date from 1st May, 1950, to 1st January, 1951. Our reason for putting this Amendment on the Order Paper may be divided under two heads—firstly, the practical head, and secondly, the constitutional head. Looking at this Amendment I tried to work out why the Government should have chosen of all the dates of which I can think the most inconvenient, 1st May, 1950. It may be that it is because that is Labour Day and the last one which the present Government will be able to celebrate during this Parliament.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Jack Jones): So the right hon. Gentleman hopes.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary says that is what I hope. It is quite true. It is also a fact so far as the present Government are concerned. We cannot alter the Constitution quinquennially, even if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary thinks so.
Why 1st May? I wish first to address myself to the practical aspect. I think I should be right in saying that the earliest date upon which this Bill might become an Act of Parliament would be July or August. If the House of Lords reject it or amend it in a way disagreeable to the Government, the last date upon which it might become law—and that, for the purposes of my argument, is the period which it is necessary to consider—will be January or February, 1950. I do not know if that calculation is correct, but it is as accurate as I can make it.
This Iron and Steel Corporation and its hundred or so subsidiary companies have to take over on 1st May the responsibility for by far the largest business in the world. They have to take it over when it is quite clear from what has been said, not only in Committee but during the Report stage, that, whatever the Government may know, whatever system they have thought out for acquiring these securities, it is absolutely certain that they

have no idea, or have disclosed none, about how the business is to be run. I do not know, for example, whether the Iron and Steel Federation is to be retained by the Minister to teach him how to run the 100 companies which are to be part of the Iron and Steel Corporation. All through these Debates it has been quite clear that the day-to-day relations of the companies are to be left to be worked out in the future, and there is no coherent or cohesive plan as to how this industry and the relations between these 100 companies are to work. It is a very large business, as I have said—the largest in the world.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: No

Mr Lyttelton: I am not talking about public utilities. I think it will be the largest industrial or commercial business in the world. I am quite willing to say that it is among the first three, if that is more satisfactory to hon. Members. It may be that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of the American Telegraph and Telephone Company, which I think is one of the very largest, and is also a great deal more efficient than the State-owned Post Office. But that is in parenthesis.
The business of organising and taking over such an enormous business between the latest date on which this Measure can become law and the vesting date of 1st May, when these responsibilities have to be assumed, would tax the best brains in the world and would be impossible for the best commercial brains to work out in that time. I need hardly say that those considerations apply with a great deal of force to very harassed Ministers who have not, from their Ministerial experience, the particular knowledge necessary to run such a business. The point is the simple one that no one could possibly put the organisation, the system or even the book-keeping and liaison between all these companies into an efficient state of organisation between the latest date on which this Bill may become law, which may be January or February next, and 1st May.
There is a second point that a longer period than from January to May will be required to complete hiving operations which may have been delayed by companies during the earlier periods. There are a number of companies which I think


wish to put before the Minister proposals for hiving-off operations but which will very naturally delay doing so for as long as they can, because when or if—whichever hon. Members prefer—the Labour Government are defeated at the polls, this Bill will be repealed.

Mr. Chetwynd: Has the right hon. Gentleman ignored the proviso which states that there shall:
on the first day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty, or such date later than the date aforesaid, but not later than the expiration of 18 months from the passing of this Act …"?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not in any way ignoring that. It makes the point very much stronger.

Mr. Chetwynd: It means that the Corporation must not necessarily take over in May if this Bill becomes law in January or February.

Mr. Lyttelton: It is most agreeable when hon. Members opposite follow and reinforce one's arguments so cogently. The whole force of my argument is that the vesting date should be pushed onwards. In respect of hiving-off operations that is apparently to some extent acknowledged, which merely reinforces the point that 1st May is too early a date for the vesting date.

Mr. Chetwynd: Only if this Bill does not become an Act before February. If it becomes an Act this year, 1st May is a reasonable date.

Mr. Lyttelton: I would not agree with that. I am not trying to prejudge the action of another place. I do not know what the action in another place will be. Their Lordships have not communicated to me their views on the subject—[Interruption.] Did I hear an hon. Member say, "I wonder"? I made a statement of fact and he has no right to question it. For the purposes of this argument, however, it is necessary to look not at the earliest date but at the latest date upon which the responsibility may be thrown upon the Government of organising the Corporation. Hon. Members opposite will surely agree that we should, in considering this timetable, take account of the worst circumstances; and the worst circumstances are that the Bill does not become an Act till January or February. All hon. Members, many of whom have

wide industrial experience—and I think I carry the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) with me on this—know that it is impossible to organise a business of this kind, and all its interelations, in the period of, say, between January-February and 1st May. I think I can carry hon. Members opposite as far as that. The hiving-off proposition is a subsidiary one. So I say that on all practical grounds, 1st May is much too early.
Before I go on to what I may call the constitutional aspect of the question, I should like to know why the Government attach importance to 1st May—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is Labour Day."]—beyond the purely frivolous one that it is Labour Day. If they are going to lose the General Election—as I think they will—[Interruption.]—yes, upon this particular point I will permit the hon. Member to interrupt me, because I am now expressing an opinion and not stating a fact; nobody can state facts about things which are going to happen next year. Again I can only express satisfaction that the hon. Member follows the argument; perhaps he has caught it from his hon. Friend on the bench near him. At any rate, if the General Election takes place, as it must, after 1st May, it is bound to take place within about six weeks; and I would say, quite dispassionately, that 1st May has apparently been selected because, from every point of view, it is the most inconvenient date anybody could think of.
When, as I think—and the hon. Member opposite disagrees with me—the party on these benches is returned to power, say, about June, they will find—vesting having taken place about a month before —the operation of undoing the damage may be immensely more difficult by the date on which vesting has taken place. "The evil that men do lives after them"—

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman now admitting that it would be far better if the present Government won the Election?

Mr. Lyttelton: I did not catch that.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman now admitting that it will cause far less confusion if the present Government win the General Election?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member did not, unfortunately, follow the quotation. I said, "The evil that men do lives after them." If the hon. Member wishes me to complete the quotation, I will say, "The good"—and I look in vain for it at times—" is oft interred with their bones." If something silly is going to be done, as in this Bill—and the whole thing is completely silly—the dislocation and chaos is, I admit, less if the silly people are still there to carry on their silly policies. But in public affairs we have to imagine things being usually on a more satisfactory basis. I am not putting the thing in any except a hypothetical way. I am only saying that, in the first place, there is not time by 1st May for the Corporation to organise; and secondly, in the event of what I can only gather would be very distasteful to hon. Members opposite—for we shall not have the opportunity of seeing many of their faces here again in 1950—

Mr. Scollan: The right hon. Member is not coming back.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am sorry, I missed that—[Interruption.] I shall be willing to settle that question on a financial basis outside with any hon. Member who likes to take it up. It is highly objectionable to have this transfer of securities only a month or six weeks before Parliament comes to an end under the operation of the quinquennial Act.
I am now coming to another part of the subject which may be less agreeable to hon. Members opposite. It is that, because of a lack of confidence in their electoral chances, they have chosen this particular date which, from a practical point of view, is highly undesirable. What troubles the hon. Members who, so far, have followed my arguments so closely? What is the objection, if the Labour Party are returned, to altering the vesting date? One would have thought that anybody who has the slightest confidence in the electoral chances of their party would have said, "Let us only assume the responsibility for taking on this vast business at a time when it can be properly organised. Now we have come back, iron and steel is to be nationalised, whether it is stupid or not. That is a certaintly. But let us, in the middle of a General Election "—when Ministers are moving from one portfolio to another and from one foolishness to another—"have time

for the Iron and Steel Corporation to bed itself down and find out what it is up to."
I should have thought that, from every point of view, that is what they would have said; but I quite realise that hon. Members opposite have no such confidence at all. I think that all they wish to do is to be able to say to their supporters, "During our inglorious life we have carried out the last of the foolish promises we made, which is that by 1st May, we would nationalise iron and steel. It has the additional advantage of causing any Government, of another political complexion which succeeds us, the utmost possible trouble and difficulty in untying the business we have just done." I do not wish to deal with this in a light manner. I seriously think that if hon. Members opposite believe in their electoral chances, it is greatly to their advantage to put the vesting date on 1st January. No harm will be done at all to their principles over nationalisation. If, on the other hand, these roseate expectations are, as so often happens in human affairs, to be cast to the ground, and if others should assume responsibility. then in the national interest it is highly desirable that the transfer and potential vesting should not have taken place before that event occurs.

Mr. Erroll: One of the unfortunate features about the particular date of vesting, which has been ignored in the Bill, is the high degree of uncertainty which is created. It is not only a question of the earliest date we are adopting, but the fact that vesting may take place over a period, an unknown period, of eighteen months from the passing of the Act; but not before 1st May.
In Committee the Minister suggested that he had worked out his date of 1st May, 1950, on the assumption that the Bill would go through in the normal way; and that there would then be approximately nine months before 1st May, and a further nine months after 1st May. It would give nine months in which to set up the Corporation, and a possible period of nine months afterwards for the postponement of the vesting of specific individual companies. His remarks, put in that way, would appear superficially to be entirely reasonable. But, of course, what the Minister left out of account is that even if the Bill should pass through in the normal way, and


receive the Royal Assent during this Summer, nine months is nothing like long enough to set up the Corporation itself. Not only have the members of the Corporation to be selected, and their individual acceptances to be received, but the Corporation has to prepare itself for the responsibilities which will fall upon it on the vesting date proper. The Corporation must prepare itself for vesting and it cannot conceivably do that by 1st May, 1950.
We must work to the earliest date specified in the Bill, namely, 1st May, 1950. We cannot theoretically assume, say, 1st August, 1950, or 1st September, 1950. One must take up all the slack possible, so to speak, and visualise the earliest possible date permitted by the Bill. Therefore, on the basis of 1st May, 1950, being the vesting date for this industry, it is obviously too soon for the Corporation to take over its manifold responsibilities.
6.0 p.m.
In Committee, the Minister himself said that 1st May was put into the Bill:
… because … it was generally in the interests of the industry to have a vesting date as early as possible, giving reasonable time for the Corporation to get down to their job."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Standing Committee C, 26th January, 1949; c. 524.]
Experience of the nationalisation of other industries has shown that so short a period as nine months is not long enough for the preparatory work. Surely, it is far better to delay for five or six months more and have a proper and smooth transfer, if transfer there must be, than to have a hasty ill-prepared transfer which will cause subsequent dislocation and great harm to the industry. In the case of the National Coal Board, it was clear that 1st January, 1947, was too soon and that it would have been better deferred to April after the winter coal cutting target period had been fixed—[An HON. MEMBER: "It was 25 years too late."]—in that case, a month or two could hardly make much difference—in order to effect a smooth transfer. Owing to the premature transfer date there has been considerable congestion in the administrative authorities in connection with electricity, which they are only now beginning to get over. Why repeat this in the case of the iron and steel industry?
There is a further matter, not within the purview of the Corporation, which is of great importance to those connected with the industry. I refer to the possibility of hiving-off certain activities which do not belong to the iron and steel industry proper and to which the Minister might well give his blessing. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he intends to provide facilities for the preparation of hiving-off schemes. While he was not prepared at any stage of the discussion of this Bill to give specific undertakings as to which hiving-off schemes would be accepted and which would not, he has stated on several occasions that he 'would view such schemes sympathetically and approve them where practicable. The period of a few months which remains between the passage of this Bill and 1st May, 1950, is nothing like time enough for the preparation of hiving-off schemes which necessarily must be complicated and which should be properly considered not only by the industry, not only by the Corporation in its embryo form, but by the Ministry and its own staff. Nine months is simply not time enough for such important and intricate work if it is to be done carefully, fully and conscientiously.
Again, with the date of 1st May, 1950, there is a very real dilemma for those persons in the industry who might be invited to join the Corporation. On the assumption that the General Election will take place in May or June of next year, persons invited to join the Corporation during the Autumn of this year will be placed in a dilemma. If they accept an invitation to join the Corporation, then they will have demonstrated that they are in favour of nationalisation, and they may find that as a result of the General Election they have to remain in an industry which is in private ownership. Let us consider this from both points of view. There may be, though I doubt it, a few people in the industry who wish it to be nationalised. There is certainly a very great dilemma for these individuals who receive invitations to join the Corporation when the industry is nationalised. They will be marked men. We all know what will be their fate in a nationalised industry. They will be on the record as having said "No" to a nationalised industry. What will be their chance of promotion in a nationalised industry under circumstances such as that?

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the nationalised boards will treat any members of their staff as inhumanly and as inconsiderately as private enterprise have treated theirs?

Mr. Erroll: There are plenty of complaints already about the way in which the employees of nationalised industries are being treated. if the hon. Member is unfamiliar with those complaints, I suggest that he might go down to Betteshanger, in Kent, or to a certain colliery in Wales. He could learn a good deal from the headquarters of certain nationalised hoards, namely, the Board at Hobart House, and another at Waring and Gillow's old shop in Portland Street.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman say that his view of the present directors of iron and steel companies is such that should one of their senior employees accept a job under a nationalisation Bill which had been accepted by the House of Commons but not put into operation, those companies would indulge in a policy of victimisation?

Mr. Erroll: I was careful to show that that would not be the case. The danger is all the other way round. Of that we have many examples already. I will, however, gladly concede this point. One cannot hope to eradicate the fear which might exist in the mind of an individual that he would be victimised, even though in fact he would not be. One cannot eliminate that. I want to be quite fair in this matter. I do not want to make a purely political point. I want to make it plain that there is this real dilemma for senior officials and others in the industry who might have said publicly, in advance of the General Election, whether or not they would join the Corporation.
I do not think that we need make the point whether one side or the other will treat them more unfairly. The important factor is the feeling of apprehension and confusion in the minds of these senior executives who will be faced with the dilemma of deciding whether to accept an invitation to join the Corporation. What are they to do—to accept or to reject? Whose advice are they to take, or should they take no advice? These will be their thoughts at the very time when they should be

concentrating upon improving steel production and output.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Why should they not accept?

Mr. Erroll: They may have very good personal reasons for not accepting. They may not wish to serve in a nationalised undertaking. They may be faced with the dilemma of deciding whether to go into an undertaking in another country instead. All sorts of personal problems would arise, and all these difficulties could be eliminated by the postponement of the vesting date by three or four months.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: If the gentleman in question has personal reasons for not accepting, then no difficulty arises. If he has personal reasons, he refuses to accept, and that is the end of the matter.

Mr. Erroll: I am only trying to make the point that there would be no difficulty for an individual in reaching such a decision if the vesting date were postponed until after the next Election. Then there would be no doubt about the future of the industry and whether it was to be nationalised or to remain in private hands.

Mr. Chetwynd: The hon. Gentleman is making the point that it is difficult for a man to make up his mind in May, 1950, whereas it is possible for him to make up his mind in January, 1951. I assume that it will always be Conservative policy to put the steel industry back into private hands. Therefore, presumably; this person will be faced with the same choice at every Election which comes along, whether it is in 1951 or 1955. He must always have in mind the possibility that if he takes the wrong course in May, 1950, he will be victimised later.

Mr. Erroll: I do not think that situation applies. We are not prepared to say what our Election policy will be in 1955.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Or in 1950.

Mr. Erroll: One Election at a time, please. No executive wishes to enter into a contract to join an organisation for the rest of his life before he knows that that organisation is going to come into being, and if vesting date is postponed until after the General Election, he will know that the organisation


is going to come into being—if indeed it is—and will be able to make his decision without difficulty and without those personal doubts and dilemmas of which he will otherwise become a victim. That is an important matter for an executive in the iron and steel industry, on whom the responsibility for high steel production rests just as much as it does on the backs of the workers in the foundries and the steel plants themselves.
By selecting the date of 1st May, 1950, the Government are showing that they cannot have very much confidence in the result of the next Election. If they had that confidence, what possible harm could there be in waiting until the date mentioned in our Amendment, when they would have a further lease of life and a further mandate for another period of four to five years during which to consolidate the industry and build up the Corporation without any of the doubts and difficulties hanging over it. It is quite obvious that, after the disastrous results to the Labour Party in the L.C.C. elections, and the prospect of the drubbing they are going to get on 12th May, they are very anxious to make sure of 1st May next year, because they wish to drive on with their stale mandate.
They have not the courage to go to the country on this issue and invite defeat; instead they prefer to try to force through a partial vesting, in order to create such a degree of chaos in the industry, by partially completed vesting operations, that it will be impossible for the Conservative Party, if returned to power, to repeal the Measure and put the industry into orderly shape. They are pursuing a "scorched earth" policy, and if they can only burn some of the outer brushwood of the industry, they will do their best to make it impossible for us to restore it to full vigour when we are returned to power.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am sorry the hon. Member ended his speech on that note, because prior to that, I thought he was making a reasonable case, although I did not agree with his conclusions and arguments. I am afraid that I cannot add very much to what I have already said and what my colleagues have said on many occasions, particularly during the Second Reading Debate and in Committee.
I should have thought that the arguments for maintaining 1st May, 1950, as the date for the general transfer were exceedingly strong and would be accepted even by those who disagree with our nationalisation proposals. I should have thought that there is common agreement that, if Parliament decides that an industry of this importance is to be nationalised, the quicker the transfer takes place the better, allowing proper time, of course, for those who are going to be in charge to get to grips with the problem. It is highly desirable to cut down, as far as is practicably possible, the period of suspense, uncertainty and unsettlement between the date of the Royal Assent and the general date of transfer of these companies to the new Corporation.
We are basing, as indeed we are bound to base, our calculations on the prospect of the passage of this Bill into law by the summer of this year. All our previous nationalisation Measures have been passed into law by the end of July. We have no information from another place, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), and we must therefore assume that another place will accept the verdict of this House, as it has done with other nationalisation Measures, and pass this Bill after a similar examination to that which it gave to those Measures and in roughly the same period—in which case the Bill will become law by July of this year.
Then, the question arises how long is it necessary to leave the industry and its boards of directors and managements in suspense before the actual transfer takes place. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has said that it would be quite impossible for the members of the Corporation to reorganise the industry in nine months or to reorganise it at all. It is not suggested that the industry will be completely reorganised prior to the transfer of the industry to the Corporation. Nobody that I know has said that that reorganisation will take place.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. W. Shepherd: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? He has spoken of the reorganisation of the industry. Will he tell us what he means by that?

Mr. Strauss: I think the hon. Gentleman, who was a Member of the Committee, must know that it is one of the


major objects of the nationalisation of this industry to render it more efficient by various Measures of rationalisation and reorganisation. That is surely accepted. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale has said that previous experience has led us to believe that nine months is an insufficient time for the Corporation to get the necessary knowledge and experience to enable them effectively to take over the industry. I think the hon. Member is wrong. He appears to forget that the duties of this Corporation are wholly unlike those of the National Coal Board. The latter has assumed responsibility for running the mines of the country, but it will not be the duty of this Corporation to run the various iron and steel works.
The organisation of these works is going to remain exactly as it is for the time being. The workers, management and boards of directors will continue in operation for the time being until such schemes of reorganisation can be decided upon. Therefore, the Corporation will not have the duty of taking over the responsibility for the running of these works from the general date of transfer. It is because of our experience with previous nationalisation Measures that we can say confidently to the House that within nine months we expect that the first-class people concerned—and they will be first-class—will be able to secure all the information and knowledge necessary for the general date of transfer without any difficulty at all.
If it is possible for them to acquire that knowledge and to be in a position to assume that responsibility within nine months after the Royal Assent, we say that it is in the interests of the industry that that transfer should take place then, and that any delay after that is contrary to the interests of the iron and steel industry and might lead to dislocation. And if it is contrary to the interests of this industry, it is also contrary to the interests of British industry generally. Therefore, on the assumpion which we must make that the Bill will be passed into law in the Summer of this year, we say that it is right and in the interests of the industry that the general date of transfer should be 1st May, 1950, at the latest.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? This is a very

interesting argument which he is developing. Will he tell us what in his view would be the proper interval between the date of the Royal Assent to the Bill and the vesting date? Is it nine months?

Mr. Strauss: I think nine months would provide ample time. Indeed, I believe it could be done, though maybe not so efficiently, in six months or so after the Royal Assent. It may be that it could be done in a shorter time, but nine months is ample.
Two arguments have been used, apart from those which I have indicated, in regard to the general date of transfer. It has been said that there are a number of cases of hiving-off or special cases, and that some companies might find it exceedingly inconvenient. There is no need for any company which has any proposal to put before me to wait until this Bill becomes law before preparing its schemes. It could have been doing so for the last six months, and will have ample time to do so before 1st May, 1950.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Is any industrialist likely to propound a scheme for hiving-off until he knows what is going to be in the Bill, because the Bill has been considerably changed?

Mr. Strauss: The wise ones are already making their suggestions and preparations to meet the day when this Bill will inevitably become law. But the point I was going to make was that there is a special provision by which, with the agreement of the Corporation, a particular company which has not fully completed its arrangements can postpone its date of transfer. We are talking here about the general date of transfer, but there may be exceptions affecting some particular companies.
The point which has been generally ignored is that we have particularly taken powers under this Clause, in case of any possible eventuality, so that we may postpone the date of transfer until 18 months after the Royal Assent. I think that is the right way to proceed with this proposal. On the assumption that the normal developments will take place, we say that 1st May, 1950, is the right date. There may be industrial or political developments which would make it harmful for the iron and steel industry to be transferred on that date, in which case the Minister of Supply has power to post-


pone the date of general transfer until any time up to 18 months after the Royal Assent. Therefore, there is ample flexibility here, which, maybe—I am not quite sure in this instance—the Opposition support.
When in previous nationalisation Measures a specific date for transfer was put in the Bill, the Opposition always pressed the Government to take power to postpone the date and to leave it flexible because they said it might be desirable. I think that they have sometimes been right, and certainly they are right in this instance. We have done that here; we have got that flexibility, and, if necessary, we can postpone the date. But I hope and believe that, as I said at the beginning, the general interests of the industry are that the transfer should take place as soon as possible after the Royal Assent. We believe that we have taken the proper precautions in the Bill as drafted, to give that flexibility as to the date of transfer whenever it may be, and this will be in the best interest and to the great advantage of the iron and steel industry and of the future of the new Corporation.

Colonel Lancaster: I did not have the advantage of taking part in the Committee stage of this Bill, and therefore I was interested to hear the Minister's views as to why this transfer should take place on 1st May. What the Minister has said is, substantially, the quicker the better. We seem to have heard that expression on previous occasions, and I think that the House really deserves to have something a little more concrete than that general' proposition. I notice that, on this occasion, the Minister has not advanced the point that an early transfer would enable the enthusiasm of the workers for this Measure to be maintained, and, indeed, that the best results would therefore accrue.
On a previous occasion that point was put forward, to which we replied—and I think reasonably—that if there was some lasting benefit to be obtained from the enthusiasm of the workers for a nationalisation scheme of this sort, surely the vesting date needed to occur under the best possible circumstances, when the industry was organised in such a way that it could have the greatest chance of success, and when that enthusiasm could

be harnessed to something which was likely to be a satisfactory Measure. As I say, the Minister has not advanced that view on this occasion; therefore, I must assume that the reasons actuating his mind in this matter are quite clearly that in nine months we can set up this Corporation, and, since we can do that, what is the point of waiting longer?
Then we come to the consideration of what, in fact, this Corporation will require to do when it takes over on vesting date. The Minister said that, unlike the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, or other nationalisation Acts, the Iron and Steel Corporation is not going to be a functional organisation, and that, therefore, the same problems will not arise as arose on previous occasions. But surely this Corporation is there for a purpose, and if, that purpose is, as the Minister said, to bring about the reorganisation, co-ordination, and rationalisation of the industry, then they have a job which is lust as difficult, and possibly more difficult, than that of a purely functional board. I suggest to the Minister most seriously that the administrative requirements of reorganisation and co-ordination are such as can only be effected by an excessively efficient Corporation.
Are we to assume that the Government are going to be so successful in creating this Corporation that they are going to have a number of men who are automatically not only efficient, but familiar with all the problems likely to arise at that moment? Of course, that is not so. Those men will have to feel their way, and until they are themselves co-ordinated into an effective organisation they are not going to function effectively so far as the industry as a whole is concerned. To suggest that it is possible not only to recruit those men, and not only that they should attain the necessary knowledge and experience of the industry, but that they should be so co-ordinated as to function efficiently in a short time is, I think, asking too much.
If those men have not to take over the industry in the first instance, what is lost in delaying this matter for a reasonable period? If, as is said, the industry is going to continue under its own management, and if its day-to-day functioning is to be precisely as at present, then, on the face of it, there is not a great deal to be said for undue haste. If, on the other


hand, it can be shown by experience that undue haste brings in its train certain disadvantages, then the House would be well advised to consider what are those disadvantages. After all, we have some experience of what haste results in so far as coal nationalisation is concerned. It resulted in the wrong men being put into the wrong positions, and the industry has suffered accordingly from that day to this.
If the same thing is to happen on this occasion, the Government will have no one but themselves to blame. At least they have past experience to go by. If they are going to ask this organisation, to co-ordinate itself and get down to work before it is ready to do so, they will not be giving the industry the best chance of success which it should have. We oppose nationalisation root and branch, but at least we have said, and we continue to say, that once nationalisation is on the Statute Book, we wish it well.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Attewell: Yet the hon. and gallant Member says that if it goes on the Statute Book, hon. Members opposite will repeal it at the first opportunity.

Colonel Lancaster: So long as it is the law of the land we wish it well. If, as the result of a General Election, we are able to obtain another mandate from the electorate, we shall certainly dispose of this very silly Measure, but so long as it is the law of the land we wish it well and we feel that it should be given, under those circumstances, every reasonable chance of success.
Now, there is nothing that the Minister has advanced this afternoon in any detail which convinced me—and, I am sure, hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House—that he has thought this matter out in any detail. I do not want to claim to be more knowledgeable in industrial organisation than anybody else, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that these things are not ironed out as quickly as one would wish. If it were an undertaking of medium or small size, nine months would be a reasonable period, but this is an immense undertaking—as has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), possibly one of the three biggest industrial undertakings in the world. If it is to be a success, it wants every chance that it can have. To imagine that that prospect is in any way

enhanced by rushing what may well be the key matter to the whole prospect appears to be nothing less than absurd.
Everything else is in existence. The 107 companies are there, the managements and the men, with their experience, are there. The one thing that will affect each one of these undertakings is the subsequent action and wisdom of that Corporation. It is the one way by which the matter can turn out to he a failure or a success. Is it wise in those circumstances to rush the decision with regard to that Corporation? Is it wise to rush the selection of the individuals who will take part in at and to assume that they will gain the necessary knowledge, the necessary contacts with the industry, to enable them to function on, vesting date? Is it wise to imagine that they will form themselves into a corporate society which functions as a team within that short period?
I cannot for one moment suppose that will happen. I believe the Government are unwise to press this matter and to be insistent that, as the Minister said, the quicker they vest the better. I believe those to be unwise words, and I hope that, on further consideration, the Government will recognize that a delay of three or six months would be far more in the interests of the industry and would give them, if returned to power at the next Election, a far greater chance of success.

Mr. Mitchison: Some of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the opposite benches seem to have imagined a Corporation the members of which had little or no knowledge of the industry to start with and would be compelled to learn it. I would remind the House that the Corporation has to consist of:
persons who have had wide experience of and shown capacity in. the production of iron ore or iron or steel, industrial, commercial or financial matters, administration or the organisation of workers.
We are not dealing here with a Corporation of people who know nothing of the industry and who know nothing of the work that they will be called upon to do. The first question, and it seems to me the main question, is this: is there any real reason why the taking over by a Corporation so composed should be delayed beyond the period of nine months if the Minister, with his technical information and his knowledge of the industry—and after all the Ministry of Supply by now


must know something about the iron and steel industry—has come to the conclusion that that is a reasonable and sufficient period for the purpose?

Colonel Lancaster: Would the hon. and learned Member allow me to interrupt? Only one of the categories of individuals he has read out who form part of this Corporation of necessity have any knowledge or experience of the industry whatsoever.

Mr. Mitchison: My first answer to that is that it is not a question of knowing the industry; it is a question of those members of the Corporation having experience and capacity of the work they have to do, and they are to be chosen for that purpose, and the description of their experience and capacity is directed to that purpose.
I find it somewhat astonishing that a period of nine months is to be required, not for the work they have to do, but for preparing themselves for this work. I believe that if the Minister is erring at all in this matter, he is erring on the side of making the period too long rather than too short. After all, there is some precedent. There are other large corporations in this country carrying on businesses of a size comparable even to the iron and steel industry, and I have yet to hear that a longer period than nine months is required by way of probation and study before directors are appointed to some of the boards of the leading holding companies in this country.
It is suggested that the motto of the Government in this matter is "the quicker the better." Let me help right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who will no doubt be in difficulties at the next General Election, by suggesting to them that they might adopt the motto, as they appear to do today, of "the slower the better." After all, if anyone suggests that nine months is insufficient, it is up to them to show how and why it is insufficient. I cannot regard the National Coal Board, about which I claim no particular knowledge, as a parallel with the Corporation which is being set up in this industry. As I see it, this has an entirely different function, and a relation to the iron and steel companies entirely different from any relation that the National Coal Board has to any one whatever.
On those grounds it seems to me that those who moved and supported this Amendment and take a particular date and say that that is the right date, ought to be able to show the House, in a way which they have conspicuously failed to do up to the present, that there is what has been described by those opposite as undue haste in the period that the Minister has taken. All I can say is that that period seems to be certainly not too short at first sight, and I should be inclined to think that it was rather too long. I believe that a great deal of the confusion opposite has arisen partly from a natural Conservative frame of mind that, if you are to do anything, do it as slowly as possible, and if you are to put it off, put it off as long as possible, and partly from a real confusion between setting up a corporation and getting that corporation to do its work.
What we are considering here is not the period when the reorganisation work of the Corporation will have been completed, but the period when it is to be begun. Let us suppose that these gentlemen are appointed and at a reasonably early date. There are suggestions that an embryo corporation might do something. I cannot see what these gentlemen who already have capacity and experience in the matters on which they have to function are to do. Are they supposed to sit there for nine months considering what they are going to do at the end of it? How is their time to be passed? In silent meditation, or in merely twiddling their thumbs in some office or another? Meanwhile, the whole of this industry will be left in an uncertainty for which I see no particular reason.
Moreover, I do not feel that we on this side of the House are called upon to say that this time is too short or too long. The burden is on those who say that there is some practical reason why the delay should be longer to tell us what the practical reason is, and if they do not show us what the practical reason is, then we are entitled to assume that the reason is not a practical one but a political one. The political reason—if that is the real reason—is obvious to anybody. It is apparently the intention of this Amendment to put the vesting date beyond the latest possible date at which the next General Election can take place.
I see no particular reason why the efficiency of the steel industry, nationalised as it is to be, should be sacrificed to the convenience of a political party opposite in order to make it easier for them to say, "Stop it, you have time," and who do their best to create unjustified and unjustifiable panic in the country on the strength of that sort of cry. I see no reason why we should be called upon to assist political manoeuvres of that type, and to disregard for that purpose the best interests of the country itself and of the iron and steel industry. For these reasons I regard this Amendment as misconceived in practice and inspired, so far as I can see, by party considerations and no other considerations.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am very glad that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has intervened in this discussion, and, moreover, done so with more heat than he treated us to in those lengthy days in Standing Committee, when we all enjoyed his contributions. He is to be congratulated, indeed, because he has broken the rule which seems to prevail on the benches opposite, that scarcely any hon. Member opposite is allowed to speak even on this most polemical and political issue in the Bill. The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) came in in a high state of exitement, twittering at the prospect of making a political speech, only to find the iron hand of the Whip heavily against him, as it was against all hon. Gentlemne opposite in Standing Committee, so that they were not enabled to contribute to those very interesting discussions. I was looking up some facts about the Committee stage upstairs, and found that the right hon. Gentleman and his Front Bench colleagues spoke 13½ or 14 hours in the discussions, whereas hon. Members behind them—and I include the whole time that all of them spoke—spoke only two and a half hours. That was pretty harsh work. I feel sure that if any such system were to prevail on these benches our contributions would not be so effective as we like to think they are.

Mr. S. N. Evans: I am sure the noble Lord would not like to be misreported in HANSARD. As I heard him, he said that the back benchers on this side in the Committee spoke only for two and a half hours. I would put it to him that one, at least, spoke as long as

that himself, and that another, to my knowledge, spoke for an hour. Therefore, I suggest that he checks up his figures, because the figure he has just given is quite ridiculous.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I did the calculation very rapidly, and I subtracted the 57 minutes of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), because he often spoke in the Conservative sense. The Minister treated us to a speech on this Clause, and he made one particular tergiversation in the course of his rather rapid remarks which, I hope, he will clear up. It was that the vesting date would be 1st May, 1950, at the latest. I hope he does not intend, when the Bill goes to another place, to make it earlier. I am glad he shakes his head.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Probably, what I intended to say was, it should be 1st May at the latest. Plainly, it cannot be earlier than 1st May, as the Clause says 1st May at present.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What the Clause says now is no indication of what the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind for a future occasion or in another place. I am glad to clear the point up. He said very little in Committee and has said very little now about the reorganisation of the iron and steel industry. It has been our constant complaint that inadequate time is given for that between the passage of the Bill and the vesting date because of the great difficulty of reorganisation. He was asked to say something about it in Committee. He was asked to say something about it today, but all he said at one moment was that there would be steady reorganisation, while at another moment he completely contradicted himself, and said that by and large events prevented it.
So the House and the country are still without knowledge of what the right hon. Gentleman's intentions are. We contend on this side of the House that although reorganisation may not be so drastic as it was in the case of the coal industry, it will be as severe and as full of implication as it was in the case of the gas and electricity industries, and of some of the others. That is why we are very anxious to postpone the vesting date.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Bill might find an easy passage in another place by July. I can


see no sign of that at all. It is quite possible that another place will defer it, even in this Session, late into the autumn. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, its consideration could last until February, 1950, before the combination of this Measure and of the Parliament Act makes its passage imperative. That would leave only three months for the complexities to be overcome, which so many of us on this side have pointed out. We consider that amount of time to be quite inadequate.
I should like to say a little more about the position of managers and officials and directors in the industry, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) referred. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering read out the characteristics of those men. It is quite clear that they must all, if possible, be of that character, but the whole point we are making on this side of the House is that it is very unlikely that the Government will be able to get men of that character and of those characteristics.

Mr. Fernyhough: Why?

6.45 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Precisely for the reasons given on this side of the House, that there is so much uncertainty as to the future of this Bill and as to how that industry is to be organised. It was all very well in the case of the coal, electricity and gas industries. In those cases there was the prospect of some years—five years, in the case of coal—of Labour rule even after nationalisation. Some managers and technicians might have said that they still had a further five years of life.
Now, however, the situation is very different indeed, and an intolerable decision is forced upon men of high public position in the iron and steel industry to decide for themselves whether they can best serve the interests of the country by coming into the nationalisation scheme, or best serve the interests of the country by staying with their own companies at the present time, and waiting to see how this thing goes. If they leave their companies today and accept the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman, and the General Election produces a very different result from the last, they will have lost their positions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because they will

have been replaced in their companies by others, while those companies will remain, under Conservative legislation, more or less as they are.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the difficulty any greater than that which faced Robert Foot when the coalowners offered him £10,000 a year to draw up a programme for the reorganisation of the coal industry? He knew at that time, as the people who made him the offer knew, that if the Labour Party were returned to power, the mines would be nationalised.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not know the detailed history of Mr. Robert Foot, but I gather that he was in the coal industry and is no longer in it. The point that I am making is that they may leave a private industry at the moment when it may or may not be nationalised. They expect an appointment in the nationalised industry, but if the industry is not nationalised they are out of the thing altogether and will never return.
There is only one other thing I want to say, and that is to reinforce what the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said, namely, that the Labour Party clearly have no confidence in themselves. If they felt that they were going forward to win the next election they would be only too pleased and proud to accept an Amendment of this kind, confident that the whole operation would go through smoothly leaving sufficient time for reorganisation to take place, with the vesting date on the 1st January, 1951. But no, they are adopting a dog in the manger attitude—a "scorched earth" policy, to use the phrase of my hon. Friend—and they are saying, "We will scramble these eggs before we go, so that there is no chance that you will be able to get the industry organised properly according to your ideas." Why they should do that at the present time, I cannot make up my mind.
There does not seem to be any enthusiasm for iron and steel nationalisation anywhere in the country at the moment. I do not know of any exuberant and exhorting resolutions about to be passed at the Blackpool Conference of the party opposite, congratulating the Government on the speed and zeal with which they are proceeding to nationalize. There


have been no workers' demonstrations, so far as I know, in the iron and steel world. [Laughter.] The Parliamentary Secretary laughs. I went through his own factory at Irlam two years ago, and there was then not the smallest enthusiasm at the prospect of nationalisation. If I went there again today, I am sure that I should find very many more friendly faces.

Mr. Jack Jones: I remember the occasion when I arranged for the noble Lord, in view of the fact that he knew nothing about the steel industry, to visit one of the factories, so that at least he would have the opportunity of seeing a steel works for the first time in his life. Although he may not have found enthusiasm for nationalisation, by demonstration, flag waving, loud hurrahs and all the rest of it, I hope that he did find men busy at their task, producing steel at a greater rate than ever before in the history of this country, knowing that the Government had promised the nationalisation of the industry and would implement that promise.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I know that that is the line taken by the hon. Gentleman. He has made it before in Committee. He says that that is so, and perhaps it is true of those with whom he is immediately in contact. All I can say is that many of us on this side of the House, and some hon. Members opposite who are perhaps not so intimately associated with iron and steel as the Parliamentary Secretary, would not bear that out. Finally, there are the members of the Parliamentary Labour Party itself who, even on Report stage, when big polemical points are raised, can scarcely bring themselves to rise to their feet. Hon. Members leave the Debate just at the moment when they might come here in very great numbers to take part in a demonstration of this glorious May Day when iron and steel is to be nationalised. Only the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes), the true political partisan of the Labour Party opposite, comes here, and even he is unable to get into the Debate.

Mr. Austin: The reference by the noble Lord to the Lancashire Steel Works at Irlam, which is at present in my division seems to lead to the conclusion that although the Parliamentary Secretary courteously helped him to visit that factory, he learnt surprisingly little

from his visit to an iron and steel works for the first time. Earlier in his remarks, the noble Lord complained that those who served on the Steel Bill Committee did not take a great part in the discussions, and it seemed that he was extending an invitation to my colleagues on these benches to take a more extended part in the proceedings this evening, and thus rob his party of time for discussion. Accordingly, my hon. Friends will perhaps take advantage of his invitation.
I want to refer to one point only, and that was the point made in the first place by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), later by the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) and lastly by the noble Lord, regarding the obtaining of personnel for service in a nationalised industry. Why is it that the Opposition imagine that a nationalised industry cannot obtain personnel of as good quality as may be obtained for private enterprise? It seems to me that we must look a bit further. The arguments advanced by hon. Gentlemen are not being strictly advanced to that aspect only; they are being advanced by way of intimidation against members of this industry going into a nationalised industry for the service of the nation.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale went on to talk about the prospect of victimisation of certain personnel in the industry if they do not volunteer for service in this nationalised undertaking. By way of illustration may I say that there is not a shred of evidence that the Government are capable of or willing to victimise those who prefer not to serve. On the contrary, there is every form of evidence to show that the party opposite has every intention of victimising those who serve in a nationalised industry. May I tell the noble Lord why I say that?
In 1947, I attended the conference of the Conservative Party at the Dome, Brighton, and spent the whole day listening to their agenda—and a very interesting agenda it was, although I must confess that I did not learn very much from it. Every resolution that was passed was acclaimed and cheered by the delegates but there was one resolution, referring to nationalised industries, moved by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), and if I may paraphrase, he said that "the Conservative Party will know how to deal with those


traitors who take service in nationalised industries." That received the greatest acclamation of all.
How far does that refute the allegation that the Government are prepared to victimise those who take service in these industries? Is it not obvious that it is the party opposite who are trying to intimidate personnel from playing an honourable and noble part in truly national service in a nationalised industry? It is obvious that if the Tory Party had their way, they would victimise all those who have taken service in a nationalised industry under the Government. I hope, therefore, that neither the House nor the country will take any notice of these dreadful and pitiful arguments advanced by the Opposition.

Mr. Maclay: I think that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) has made some unreasonable charges which it is not reasonable to follow up. The point was made on this side of the House that there must be a great element of uncertainty in people's minds on this question of taking part in this nationalised industry if they do not know what the final fate of the industry is to be.

Mr. Benn Levy: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the difficulty which he anticipates is that the executives, who are constitutional trimmers, will find it difficult to know how to trim?

Mr. Maclay: That is also unworthy of following up. I had myself not thought very much along these lines, but I was impressed by this new danger which has emerged, purely on the obvious ground of uncertainty. One of the worst evils of nationalisation is this uncertainty. We get flexibility, and flexibility also produces uncertainty. The point of my remarks is the Minister's speech—

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: Surely this Amendment, if carried, would be bound to have the effect of extending the period of uncertainty. If the Bill remains as it is, the position must be decided by at least July, 1950, when the General Election result is known. If the Amendment is accepted, the industry will remain in a transitional state for at least another five months after that.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member has at least made the case for altering the date from 1st May to 1st July, which I agree is not in this Amendment. But that is not the real point I want to make. The Minister in the earlier part of his remarks made the case that nine months, or whatever it is—whether it is July or February—was enough time for all the preparations and reasonable arrangements to be made by the new Corporation. If that be the case, I cannot really see why he should have landed on this date of 1st May. It is a date which is bound to confuse everybody in the country, because quite clearly the General Election must come very close to that date.
I myself have been puzzled when discussing this Bill in the country, whether to say to people at meetings that the Government at least intend, according to the drafting of their Bill, to give the country another chance to express a view on the matter, or whether to say it is clear that the Government are going to keep it within their power at the last minute before the General Election to make an unholy mess of the industry; in other words, as was said earlier, to adopt the "scorched earth" policy, leaving behind them as bad a mess as they can. I think it is an unworthy way of dealing with an industry of this importance to leave that type of uncertainty; and I believe hon. Members opposite will agree that that uncertainty is there acutely at the moment.
If the Minister will not accept this Amendment, perhaps he might accept another, putting the date to at least July or August, which would be better than the present state of affairs in which we do not know, if the General Election comes very late in the life of this five-year period, whether we shall find ourselves with a hastily rushed through vesting date or with the 18 months' period from the Royal Assent still operating. That is, I think, the main charge we must make against this Clause—that it puts the vesting date on the worst possible day for not letting anybody know the Government's intentions.
There is another point on this, which I submit is extremely important. Only this morning a foreigner was talking to me about the operations of our present Government, and he said that one of the things which puzzled him was that, in


a nation famous throughout the world for its sense of fair play and for playing the game according to the rules, not necessarily written rules, a Government elected with a large Parliamentary majority but without a majority of the votes of the country—and on this particular Bill we know that the votes behind the Second Reading do not add up to even a majority—should, not only rule—which is quite acceptable and proper under our electoral system—but should during their period of office, carry through fundamental changes in the structure of the country.

Mr. Scollan: Which were put before the people.

Mr. Maclay: This is a fundamental alteration in the structure of this country, and the people as a whole have not apparently endorsed it, if we take a strict counting list. I am not quarrelling for one second with our electoral system; I think it is the right one, and I think it right that, even if there is this curious position that on any counting of the votes in the country there is certainly not 55 per cent. behind the Government, and on this issue less than 50 per cent., the majority party should assume office and govern. But I think it is wrong that with that kind of mandate they should take action which affects profoundly, and possibly permanently, the whole structure of the country. I am not just making this up; this was a conversation I had this morning.

Mr. Scollan: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that in the past under the electoral system a minority has given both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party the government of the country, and that on each occasion they were only asked to carry out the promises they made at General Elections? That is all that is being done here. We put it before the people.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that what was done before is rather outside this Amendment.

Mr. Maclay: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that that reproof was directed to the other side of the House, because I believe the point I am making to be very relevant to this Amendment. In the past when Governments came in under this electoral system—in saying this I am keeping an eye in your direction, Mr. Speaker—

successive Liberal and Conservative Governments at no time passed legislation such as is here being passed by this Government, which permanently alters, or could permanently alter, the structure of the country.
I am by no means convinced that the electors who put this Government into power knew what was meant by the phrases in "Let Us Face The Future" on the nationalisation of steel. Certainly they did not understand that it meant all the subsidiary companies, and all their articles of association powers. If the Government have now shaped their policy and intend to go ahead with this type of nationalisation, which goes far further than any of the electors in the country could possibly have realised at the last General Election, there is an absolute obligation on them to make certain that this can go before the country again for a straight decision.

Mr. Chetwynd: I am very sorry to know that the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) has moved very much to the Right of his more Right-wing colleagues, because I did look upon him in the Standing Committee as one of the more progressive members of his party. Today he is out-conservatising the Conservatives. He says that the people have not approved this Measure since 1945. I think they approved it at Brigg, at South Hammersmith, at North St. Pancras, and at other by-elections recently.

Mr. Maclay: I cannot accept that argument as valid, for the reason that all the by-elections have shown a progressive decline in the Labour vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, they have. By re-electing Labour Members all the people have done is possibly to endorse the continuing role of the Government. But on a purely theoretical issue of constitutional fair play—even if we have not got a written Constitution—that is no mandate for altering the whole structure of the country.

Mr. Chetwynd: I think that in almost every case the Labour vote has increased at the by-elections.

Mr. Maclay: No.

Mr. Chetwynd: In any case, the hon. Gentleman is advancing a completely


new constitutional doctrine that the Labour Party must not, in its last but one year of office, introduce any Measure which is to be passed and put on the Statute Book. His argument is that because it becomes an Act of Parliament a few weeks before the General Election, it is wrong to do this.

Mr. Maclay: That was not my point. My point was, quite clearly, that the mandate runs as long as the Parliament lasts, unless there is a change of opinion in the country. My main point was that where there is not a clear majority expressed so that there is no shadow of doubt that the nation as a whole is behind a structural alteration, there is then a very important constitutional issue.

Mr. Chetwynd: This party was put in power to place the economic resources of the country at the service of the nation, and that is precisely what this Bill sets out to do. We see no reason why we should prolong the uncertainty beyond 1st May, 1950.
Let me come to the other two points. The first was made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), who feared that the people in the industry who would be asked to serve on the Board would be afraid to demonstrate their belief in nationalisation, through fear of victimisation and that they would therefore be placed in a very invidious position unless the vesting date is postponed. Let us have a proper sense of proportion on this. The most we want is ten people and a chairman, and the least we want is six. I could go out of here tonight and find six people willing to serve upon this Corporation.

Mr. Jennings: I take it you would be one of them, to start with?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman said that I would be one of them.

Mr. Jennings: With great respect. I meant the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd).

Mr. Chetwynd: Mr. Speaker, you would certainly be qualified as one experienced in the handling of men, but as a Member of this House you would be disqualified. Obviously I would, too. If

these people are afraid because of possible victimisation should a Tory Government be returned tomorrow, they are not the kind we want on these bodies. We want strong people of independent views who know their job. That is the sole qualification for appointing them.

Mr. Jack Jones: And patriots.

Mr. Chetwynd: The Opposition have stated that we will not accept their Amendment because we are afraid we are going to lose the next Election, and that it shows a lack of confidence in our electoral chances. Surely it is just the very opposite. It is because we are convinced that we will win the next Election that we see no reason why a later date than 1st May should be chosen. It is precisely because the Tories have no confidence that they will win the next Election that they are trying to delay the Bill as long as they can. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was quite right when he said that the party opposite want to delay the date not to improve the Bill or improve steel nationalisation, but because they do not want steel to be nationalised. They ought to be honest about it.

Mr. H. Fraser: And what is wrong with that?

Mr. Chetwynd: We see no reason why we should not proceed with the programme as laid down, and if this Bill becomes an Act and another place acts in a normal way, there will be plenty of time to have the scheme organised by 1st May. If for some reason this Bill does not become an Act until next February or March, then the Minister still has power to delay the vesting date for 18 months, which again gives us ample time to get the scheme into proper order. The other point made by the Opposition is that this issue should be re-submitted to the electors. It will be, for it will be one of the main issues at the next Election. It is because we are not afraid of fighting on that issue again that we see no reason why we should delay the date, and I hope my right hon. Friend will stick to it and, if possible, ensure that 1st May is the date on which the scheme comes into operation.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Jennings: Mr. Speaker, in catching your eye this time, I must sincerely


apologise for the other "I" in my question a little earlier. I feel that this is a very important matter and ought to be reconsidered. The Minister said quite glibly that nine months ought to be ample time to allow the members of this Corporation to know all they ought to know in order to carry out their functions. A statement like that from the Minister proves that he does not understand the gravity and seriousness of the job which these people have to undertake. They are going to decide policy with regard to this industry, and I should have thought that nine months would have been a good deal too short to allow them to get into their stride and to know as much as they should know if they are to carry out their job properly.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) wanted the date to be earlier. He does not appreciate the calibre and the character of the people who are going to be chosen to be members of this Corporation. If we are to take as an example some of the appointments made in the nationalised industries—and I say this quite boldly—they are further arguments for a longer period than nine months. As I am sure hon. Members on the other side of the House will agree, they have not turned out as well as was hoped. Some have been very bad appointments indeed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name some."] The Bank of England is one example. I do not need to go any further, and I do not want to get into personalities, but speaking in a general way, the Government have made some blunders in some of their appointments. All have not been first-class appointments; some have failed.
Ministers have stated that it is not a trouble with the Socialist Government that they are going too slowly; if they have been at fault, it is that they have endeavoured to go far too quickly and to do too much in a short time. In this case the Minister is rushing things far too quickly. He has got the idea that nine months ought to be long enough for the right men. I might have agreed with him if I had known the type of men it is proposed to appoint. I know there are certain conditions attached to the appointment, such as to be conversant with the production of steel, but I would require to know the type and history of the men who are to be appointed to this Corporation before I make my judgment.

I defy any Member of this House to decide, without knowing who these people are and what is their experience, whether nine months is a sufficient period or not.
We come now to the question of the industry remaining intact. The Governmen will get a bit of a shock in that respect, because there are a number of people who have sufficient courage and strength of mind to be able to say, "I am not going to have anything to do with the nationalised steel industry. I think the economic destruction of this country will come far quicker by nationalising the industry than if we leave it as it is." Even in the coal industry today there are many people in big executive posts who are there because they would be out of work if they had not taken a job under nationalisation. They are not there because they are in favour of nationalisation, but because their livelihood necessitates it. They have no alternative. The same thing is going to happen in the nationalised steel industry.
The Minister talks about the industry remaining intact and that there will be no interference at all. I feel that the Government will get a great shock when this industry is taken over. There will be many men of courage who will have nothing to do with it, on the ground that they feel that an economic blunder is being made and they would far rather be out of the industry than hasten our economic destruction. If hon. Members opposite deny that point of view, I suggest to them that they talk to executive heads. In some of these nationalised industries they are not enthusiastic, and the same applies to the steel industry. The Parliamentary Secretary says that enthusiasm for nationalisation is amongst the workers. The only enthusiasm I can find in Sheffield is that fanned by Socialist propaganda. The men, in my opinion, are quite lukewarm, and there is not any enthusiasm. The Government are not going to get the industry left intact. Anyone who suggests that they will, is out of touch with many people who work in the steel industry today.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering asked whether we could put a single practical reason for asking for this delay. I should like to give him one sound reason for the longest possible time being allowed. It is in order that mem-


bers of this Corporation should make themselves conversant with the job they have to do so that they can carry it out efficiently. That, in my opinion, is the crux of the matter.

Mr. Mitchison: Mr. Mitchison rose—

Mr. Jennings: I will give way in a moment. The hon. and learned Member likes to get up to interrupt me, just as he did in Standing Committee, and I will give way to him in a moment. A practical reason why delay should take place is in order to give a longer time than nine months for these people to see exactly what is required of them.

Mr. Mitchison: I thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in giving way, and for doing so in such generous terms. I want to ask him, if nine months is a sufficient time, why, except for a political reason, he wants to have the longest possible time?

Mr. Jennings: I reply that anybody who puts forward the suggestion that nine months is a sufficient time cannot have ally idea of the complexity of the job that has to be undertaken. A nine months' period is frightfully short to expect people to make themselves au fait, even though they are people of the highest calibre in the industry. They have to make themselves a team, and nine months will go very quickly indeed. The period should be longer than that. I will come to the point made by the hon. and learned Member with regard to politics.

Mr. Jack Jones: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am perturbed about a statement that he has just made that he has knowledge, from his personal contact with directors and managements in Sheffield—

Mr. Jennings: I never said that.

Mr. Jones: That was the statement that the hon. Member made. He said he had personal knowledge that executives were not prepared to give their services. Can he tell the House whether he has a mandate from those individuals to tell that to the House?

Mr. Jennings: The Parliamentary Secretary is doing me a very great injustice in saying that I made such a statement. The word "Sheffield" has never passed my lips. I referred to

executives in the coal industry, and I said that I thought we should find the same thing existing in the steel industry today. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will withdraw that statement.

Mr. Jones: I withdraw it. I am perfectly satisfied with the explanation given by the hon. Member. It appears now that it was directors connected with the coal industry to which he was referring. I am satisfied that the directors to which he was referring are not directors inside the steel industry.

Mr. Jennings: The Parliamentary Secretary says that he is satisfied that I was not referring to directors in the steel industry. If he wants to wangle out of withdrawing a statement that he ascribed to me, by an explanation of that sort, I think it is most unsporting. He ought to withdraw the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite.

Mr. Jennings: I gave way because I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary was going to withdraw his statement.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) had resumed his seat.

Mr. Jennings: I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary was going to dome the honour of withdrawing. However, I will leave hon. Members to appreciate what was said and what the Parliamentary Secretary has endeavoured to flourish off in a half-hearted way in regard to what he thought I said.
I would finally say that we are taking a very grave step in nationalising the iron and steel industry. If the Government did the right and proper thing and gave the matter statesmanlike consideration there is no question which way they would move in regard to the date—that is, they would let the people decide. They would let the people of the country have a free and open vote before they so upset this industry that they destroy it. It will be extremely difficult to put the industry on its feet again. If the Government do not act as I suggest and do not stand up to that challenge, all I can say is that they are frightened of the whole situation.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: So far as it has gone, the discussion has revealed


the important link which must exist between the vesting date that we are now discussing and the date of the Royal Assent being given to the Bill. I want to take up some remarks made by the Minister earlier in the Debate. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not with us at the moment. I appreciate that he has gone to have something to eat. I shall therefore address my remarks to the Parliamentary Secretary who, I think, will realise that there is a point here of relevance and importance.
The most helpful part of the Minister's speech was when he revealed what he envisages as the timetable. He expects the Bill to be on the Statute Book by the end of July. May I put to him, with respect, and through the Parliamentary Secretary, some of the reasons why I think that calculation to be entirely out of all proportion to the probabilities? The Bill is likely to leave our House, I imagine, by the middle of May. The Report stage will be concluded next week. The Third Reading will follow. That will mean that the Bill will have taken six months in the House of Commons, despite a rigid Guillotine procedure. There are rumours, and the Minister may be able to confirm them or not, that for some reason we are to have a doubling of the Whitsuntide Recess, when the House is going up, not for a week but for a fortnight. If that is so, one wonders why the Guillotine was put on for the Report stage.
Be that as it may, it is unlikely that their Lordships will be able to read the Bill a Second time very much before Whitsuntide. In another place there is no Guillotine. We are sending them a Bill largely undiscussed, either in Committee or upon Report. That fact places upon their Lordships, who are fully conscious of their responsibilities—

Mr. Ellis Smith: They are not.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: When the hon. Member joins them, I am sure that there will be no more conscientious Peer than he. There will be placed upon another place, with or without the assistance of the hon. Member for Stoke, the necessity for a conscientious and meticulous examination of all these Clauses which we are sending them without Debate. That being the case, and no Guillotine being imposed in another

place, how can anyone envisage the Bill passing through all its stages in another place in two months? There will be a lengthy Committee stage without restriction of Debate, a lengthy Report stage and a Third Reading Debate.
The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware that that is not the end of the matter by a very long way. It is unlikely that the Bill will return to this House unamended by their Lordships, who may wish to take a stand upon certain matters. The Clause we are now discussing may be one of them. Whether the vesting date should be postponed beyond the next appeal to the country or not is the sort of point on which their Lordships may well decide to make an Amendment. It is not a great exaggeration to envisage that when the Bill emerges from another place there will he something like a shuttle service operating between the two Houses respecting a number of these matters.
7.30 p.m.
His Majesty's Government dislike their Lordships meeting when the House of Commons is up. Very strong exception was taken to it by the Leader of the House in the summer of 1947. The activities of their Lordships will be restricted by the holiday we give ourselves. Again, my ornithological informant tells me that we are rising on 29th July until 25th October. That is the information which has reached me. My ornithological informant may or may not be right, but at least I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will now see unfolding before him the likelihood not of this Bill emerging from their Lordships' House in time to receive the Royal Assent at the end of July but that His Majesty's Government will be extremely fortunate if it emerges from their Lordships' House for the Lords Amendments to be discussed here before the Christmas Recess.
That being so, I am sure the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is now beginning to realise the wisdom of our Amendment. It will put back the vesting date to 1st January, 1951, which will give a timetable not dissimilar to that which operated in the coal and Transport nationalisation Measures. It is a tidy, reasonable proposal. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) rested himself in considerable comfort on the possibility that, after all, this might not happen on 1st May, 1950. At one point the hon.


Member seemed almost on the verge of telling us that it would not happen at all; at least he pointed out that there might be a postponement.
I do not intend to get involved in a discussion about the General Election. It would have been a great help to us if the Leader of the House had remained and informed us when His Majesty will be requested to dissolve the present Parliament. However, the Leader of the House, who is an expert on timetables, has left us after one of those fleeting visits which he very occasionally pays to the House of Commons.

Mr. Walker: The Leader of the House is the governor of the Opposition anyhow.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The hon. Member says that the Leader of the House is our governor. He is certainly our dictator, our Fuhrer, but he is unlikely to be the governor of the hon. Gentleman after the General Election. I was hoping to avoid such controversial remarks. I was merely going to point out that the Mandate of 1945 is distinctly moth-eaten in 1949 and that there is nothing in the document "Let us Face the Future" to indicate the sweeping proposals the Bill puts before the country. There was an innocuous phrase about iron and steel which was swallowed up in the multiplicity of verbiage of which that document consisted. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees told us that the General Election would be fought on that issue. What has happened about that pleasant party at Shanklin at which the Minister of Food failed to recognise the size of the bacon ration? I thought a new manifesto was now being gestated. I thought that the General Election would not be fought on this issue but on the new programme of greed and grab in relation to cement, sugar, insurance and the like.
Would it not be better on grounds of parliamentary convenience—my prophecy of the progress of the Bill was not unreasonable—to accept the Amendment and thus not disappoint the thousands of steel workers who, we are told, are so anxious for nationalisation to come into force at the earliest moment? What a grievous disappointment it will be if when 1st May arrives the Bill has not

really emerged from parliamentary consideration. Some hon. Members opposite have suggested that we are anxious to delay this Measure. The delay has come from His Majesty's Government. If there was urgency for the nationalisation of iron and steel, why have the Government waited until 1949? We all know why. They have waited because of the controversies and differences within the Cabinet itself. The Minister of Health has demanded the head of Sheffield on a charger. That is why the Measure has been delayed so long. After so lugubrious a record, had not the Government better let the people pronounce before they go forward?

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) has raised some interesting points but I propose to revert to the, speech of the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings). His speech followed a pattern familiar to those who listened to him in Standing Committee, but I was rather surprised when at one time in his speech he said that the name of Sheffield had never passed his lips; that was certainly not our recollection of the way he spoke in Standing Committee.

Mr. Jennings: I was referring to my speech today. I plead guilty to having mentioned Sheffield in Standing Committee on many occasions.

Mr. Jenkins: I accept that the hon. Member was referring only to what he said today, although I think he phrased his remark in such a way that it appeared to have a very much wider connotation, which seemed a rather surprising statement about his general method of speaking. His speech followed a familiar pattern because he first made nonsense of the argument of a number of his hon. Friends who had spoken before him and then to some extent made nonsense of the Amendment for which he was speaking. The noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) said it was important that the vesting date should be postponed so that high executives in the industry who might be in a state of doubt before the result of the General Election was known would be more able to come in and play their part in the nationalised industry. However, the hon. Member for Hallam told us that there was a growing


feeling among high executives in the industry that they would have nothing at all to do with the nationalised iron and steel industry in any circumstances. There went the argument of the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale.
The hon. Member for Hallam also told us that no one who had any real knowledge of the iron and steel industry would propose that the interval between the date on which the Bill becomes an Act and vesting date should be as short as nine months. He said that in reply to an intervention by my hon. and learned Frend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). What does the Opposition's Amendment guarantee? Does it guarantee a period much greater than nine months between the date of which the Bill will become an Act and vesting date? I do not believe it does. Although we should be prepared for a situation in which the Bill would go through another place quite smoothly and it would be possible to have a vesting date a reasonable time after that, we should also be prepared to face a situation—surely not outside the realms of possibility—in which another place would hold up the Bill as long as possible. If that is the case the Bill will probably become an Act, after the Parliament Bill goes through, some time towards the end of February, 1950. Therefore, all the Amendment ensures is that instead of the period of nine months which we regard as reasonable, there shall be a period of 10 months before the vesting date comes into operation.

Mr. Lyttelton: Will the hon. Member forgive me for interrupting? I think he inadvertently misrepresented the matter. It is not a difference between nine months and a year but a difference between the possibility of three months and a year.

Mr. Jenkins: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we are entitled to look at what is the least period which the Opposition Amendment guarantees between the Bill becoming an Act and the vesting date, and I say that that period is 10 months. I think the Minister has made it fairly clear that if the other place holds up this Bill for a considerable time so that it does not receive the Royal Assent until some time in the beginning of 1950, then he has very little intention

of rushing the vesting date through in the matter of a month or two months after that.

Mr. H. Macmillan: That is an important point. Is the interpretation which the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Jenkins) has placed on the Minister's statement officially supported by the Government?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: If I may intervene, I would say that I made my position quite clear and I expressed the Government's view. I do not propose to embellish it in any way.

Mr. Jenkins: Of course, I cannot add anything of any use to the House in interpreting my right hon. Friend's speech, but the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) can read the speech, as I can read it, tomorrow and see exactly what was said. I think we are entitled to look at what period the Opposition Amendment guarantees, and it is a period of no longer than 10 months between the Bill becoming an Act and the vesting date. We have had this long discussion, therefore, and we are asked to believe that the difference between wild, foolish men, who want to destroy the industry and sensible, prudent men who want to take a reasonable period about carrying the Act into practice is no more than one month. That is the difference with which we are dealing and it seems to me a very small difference indeed.
If we move away from this point about the period not being sufficiently long to set up the Corporation and to get it into working order, we are left with the constitutional niceties of the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay), who objected to the present provisions on entirely different grounds. I want to say very little about this last point, but, of course, if his arguments are carried to their logical conclusion, they mean that no Parliament would be able to do any work of legislation in its last Session, because clearly no Government can have a greater right to legislate in its last Session than this Government; no Government can claim with a greater degree of confidence that it has retained the confidence of the country. There has certainly been no other Government, at least since 1832, which has the by-election record of this Government.
Therefore, if this Government cannot legislate in its fifth Session, no Government can legislate in its fifth Session, and if that is the position, it would be better to have a four-year Parliament instead of a five-year Parliament with a wasted year at the end of it. I submit therefore that on the first ground of the time needed to set up the Corporation,' we are arguing only about one month, and in view of what I have said about the second ground, the constitutional point, I submit that the Opposition are on very weak grounds indeed.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. P. Roberts: I should not have intervened had it not been for the quite unwarranted attack of the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Jenkins) on my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings). I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend, and let me assure the hon. Member for. Central Southwark that there was no nonsense about it at all. It was a good, practical Yorkshire speech and if the hon. Member for Central Southwark reads it in HANSARD he will see that on at least two occasions he has misquoted my hon. Friend.

Mr. Jenkins: I did not say that the speech of the hon. Member for Hallam was nonsense; that would have been a most discourteous thing to say. What I said was that his speech made nonsense of certain arguments put forward previously from that side of the House.

Mr. Roberts: As far as I understood it, the hon. Member for Central Southwark said that my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam had made nonsense of two arguments, both of which he misquoted. If the hon. Member for Central Southwark will read that speech he will see that he has misquoted my hon. Friend on two occasions.
The only other point which I wish to make is this: I am going into the Lobby this evening on this Amendment for one reason only, and that is that if this Amendment were passed, the whole of this Bill would be negatived, because we feel quite confidently in the country that by 1951, hon. Members opposite will not have the majority which they have today. They will be swept away, probably on the very arguments around this Steel Nationalisation Bill. Therefore, if we

were to pass this Amendment tonight—and I very much doubt whether we shall —I am confident that this iniquitous Bill would not become the law of this country. It is in order to make that protest that I shall go through the Lobby tonight.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: There is one aspect of this Amendment and this Clause to which I want to refer. In a series of rather irascible remarks the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that the obligation lay upon our shoulders to show some valid and functional reason why this period of time, about which we complain, would be too short. It seems to me that that can be shown in connection with what are picturesquely termed "the hiving off operations." Here we have some hundred companies in the Third Schedule—a tragic hundred, just as tragic as the more famous 600 who went "in the jaws of death" not very long ago. I think we may assume that each of these concerns is opposed to being nationalised, and that if it could see a chance at any rate of extracting that part of its activities to which it was not intended originally that nationalisation should apply, then it would take that chance. The Minister said yesterday that nobody had ever suggested that there should be a lesser field of nationalisation, but his predecessor told a very different story in 1946.
Be that as it may, we can assume that each of this tragic band of 100 would like to be able to save such of its assets as are clearly not in the Second Schedule, and provision is made for their being able so to do by what is known as the hiving off operation. In the Debate in the Committee the Parliamentary Secretary agreed with what I am about to say when he used these words about this operation:
It is one of considerable magnitude.
Later on, he used these words:
In any case the operations of hiving off will require careful consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 26th January. 1949; c. 516.]
We have had a lot of discussion this evening as to how long will he available, and it depends on a number of unknown factors. But it is clear that between the Bill becoming an Act and receiving the Royal Assent, on the one hand, and the


vesting date as fixed in the Bill, on the other hand, the period of time might be pretty short.
What will happen, therefore, in the case of those individual companies who want to carry out hiving off operations? The right hon. Gentleman told me earlier in today's Debate that some of them had already been in contact with him with hiving off plans. I submit to the House that it is an unwise thing to produce hiving off plans until one knows what the terms of the Bill finally will be, and that can only be known when the Bill has passed through another place and come back to this House. It is only from that time, therefore, that a really coherent and viable hiving off plan can be put forward.
What is the concern going to do? Let us imagine we are in charge of a concern of that kind. To use the famous words, they have to form "viable units" out of the primary processes and the subsequent processes. At present they have one viable unit. They may well have to provide two sets of staff, they may well have to provide new plant, in order to be able to make the lesser or the greater part function on its own. Therefore, they have to study all these problems to satisfy themselves that they can get the necessary plant and the necessary staff. They have to see the right hon. Gentleman and say to him, "Is this a plan which will meet with your approval?"
The right hon. Gentleman may or he may not say, "Yes," If he says, "Yes," that will be all right; but if new plant is required—I am taking their existing plant under the main part of the concern which will pass under nationalisation—he leaves that concern in the position of having what will be a viable unit when he has supplied the staff and the necessary plant to make it into one. Almost every hon. Member of this House knows that at present it is the most difficult thing in the world to get machinery and plant. Therefore, what the Minister virtually is doing is saying to that concern, "All right. You can hive off, but for a period of, perhaps, a year or two years you will have to go on paying your staff; you will have to keep that part of your unit which you are going to keep until you can get the necessary plant to get the whole thing going again." A very unfair situation, therefore, may be created.
The right hon. Gentleman may say, "Oh, yes, but that is looked after because I take power in exceptional cases to extend the date after which this will happen." That, surely, is just all our case. If this case is one which will occur fairly often, then the necessity or desirability of extending the period, as our Amendment seeks to do, is made all the stronger. I contend that these cases which are being examined by concerns who want to hive off and split are not the exception but the rule, and that the exception will be the concern that can come to the Minister here and now, or within a period which the Bill will allow, and say, "Here is a concrete, ready-made plan to hive off, which the Minister will be able to accept in that form. "The Bill is causing great disturbance to the industry. Surely, no hon. Gentleman opposite is so bound and ridden by dogma as to want to cause unnecessary disturbance. I have tried to show that, apart from all the other considerations to which we have been giving voice this afternoon, there is a very complicated problem in this hiving off which cannot possibly be satisfied satisfactorily in the time which is allowed unless our Amendment is accepted.

Mr. H. Fraser: I want to take up one or two things which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said. The hon. and learned Gentleman, alas, is not in his place, but during one of his frequent interruptions this afternoon he issued what I thought was a very clever challenge to this side, in saying that this was a purely political move on our part. Of course it is, because the Bill is a purely political move of the most disastrous sort. We sat in Committee for 36 days and we have seen throughout that there is no plan in the Minister's mind. There is no plan whatsoever except the plan which already exists—the plan put forward by the industry; and in no way is there any possibility of this Bill improving the state of the steel industry for many years to come, if at all. That is the first point. We on this side have seen that this is a purely political Measure.
The second point is that our political motive in moving the Amendment is this: we believe that when the 1945 Election was fought, this Bill was so dimly adum-


brated in the political programme of the party opposite that the country needs to review now the whole matter, so that what is meant by this nationalisation Bill is made clear to all. What was meant in 1945 was far from clear. We now see the whole gamut and range of goods which the definition "the relevant portions of the steel industry" embraces.
Thirdly, we on this side seriously believe, from the history of this Bill, that a considerably longer period of time is needed. Let us look back on what has happened. The Minister talked about nine months or ten months being necessary. It almost reminds one of the scene not so long ago with the Ministry of Food when they did not know whether the time for gestation of a cow was nine or 11 months. Certainly, from our experience so far, the period of gestation for a Socialist Bill is about half a century. I should like to refer hon. Members opposite to the remarks of the late Minister of Fuel and Power, now Minister for War, who said:
We have talked about these matters of nationalisation for a great many years but have never thought out in any detail what their full implications were.
That has become clearer and clearer as we have got on with the Bill.
In 1945 we had this pretty little picture of nationalising the relevant sections of the iron and steel industry. In 1946 we had a Debate where the Government were so hardly beaten that even the "Tribune" had to come forward and suggest that the Government should cut their economic cackle and talk straighter Socialism. Then we came to 1947, when there was an economic crisis and, because of the foreign exchange position, the Bill was withdrawn. Incidentally, at that time, the Minister of Supply, who made such a hash of his first adumbrations, was fired. Then we came to 1948. A Bill was brought forward, such a weak and wretched Bill, as the Minister himself admitted; it was put up, had to be sent upstairs and came down completely revised by hon. Members on this side. The first two Clauses had been entirely altered and improved, and so forth and so on throughout the Bill. This Bill will now go to the House of Lords. It has already been—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman must confine himself more closely to the Amendment.

Mr. Fraser: The Bill will now, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) has said, eventually go to another place. There, doubtless, as it has been so little discussed in this House, further excellent Amendments will be added to it and it will be greatly improved. Then we get down to the fact, which has been pointed out from this side, that the Bill may return here at about Christmas of this year. That will mean that then there will be a period not, as the Minister has pointed out, of nine, 10 or 12 months, but a period of three months.
We on this side seriously suggest that it is impossible for the Minister to get in three months the proper sort of organisation set on foot, for we have seen completely how unable he has been in his deliberations behind closed doors to produce a Bill which in any way is effective. So far as the Minister is concerned, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and other people have pointed to him and said, "Here is a man who knows so much about steel now because he has been in charge of the Ministry of Supply for so long." On a subject about which he should know a great deal, as the descendant of a long and distinguished line of metal merchants, I can only say that the present situation of the nonferrous metal prices in this country is absolutely disastrous. As he has made such a mess of that, what kind of mess can we expect him to make in the future? [Interruption.] This has a great deal to do with the Amendment.
The whole problem is for the Minister to select those persons who will be of use to him and will set up this Corporation and see what its functions are to be, and to get those people who should serve to serve. There is no question whatsoever that until this matter has been decided by the next General Election, by the people of this country, those people who should serve will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) has pointed out, be indecisive and unprepared as to whether they are to come in or not. The Minister has talked of the necessity of a definite date. In our Amendment we offer to the industry a definite and positive date, with


time for further thought by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The Amendment, which has been the subject of a most interesting Debate in which Members of all sides of the House have freely joined, deals with perhaps one of the most important questions arising out of the Bill. After all, in a Bill of this kind its content and character are the most important questions of all. The second big question is when it is to come into effect. I can conceive, therefore, no matter which is more likely to cause interest, both inside and outside this House, for the date of its becoming effective is a very vital question to all concerned.
8.0 p.m.
I do not propose to repeat at any length the arguments which have been used as to the possible variety of dates, but it is to be observed that as the Bill is drawn, there is a tremendous range of possible dates within which it can become effective. It goes from May, 1950, to somewhere like 1951. It is obviously a very bad thing that there should be this degree of uncertainty as to when the Bill is likely to become effective. The hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Jenkins) argued that our Amendment made a difference of only one month. Of course, he has the advantage over me that his education at Balliol was in a generation much later than mine and under different auspices, but even with the most progressive thought at Balliol today, I would not have thought one could prove that one year is the same as one month.

Mr. Jenkins: The point I tried to make was that the Opposition Amendment only guaranteed that the period between the Bill becoming an Act and vesting day would be ten months. I said that it might be as short as that—not that it would be.

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member has taken the circumstances most favourable to the Government. We have to regard all the variety of circumstances, including the delay and the upset between now and the Royal Assent, and all the circumstances which might be unfavourable to the Government. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) developed this point with great skill and, I think, made a considerable impression upon the House. Apart from the argu-

ment against uncertainty in a matter so important as this, there is the argument against haste and against too little time between the Royal Assent and the vesting date.
Here I want to ask the Minister to explain a little more carefully his own statement and the gloss put upon it by the hon. Member for Central Southwark, who is not without some of the connections with high Ministerial positions which normally accompany the position of Parliamentary Private Secretary. He interpreted the right hon. Gentleman's speech in a way which was rather important. He said that in the event of Parliamentary delays taking place, the Minister would put forward the vesting date so as to allow at least a period of nine months between the passing of the Bill and the vesting date. If that were a pledge from the Government it would make a considerable difference; it would, in fact, be the acceptance of our Amendment. Therefore, I feel that the gloss will not be so acceptable, however learned the scholiast.
As to the lack of a proper period between the Royal Assent and the vesting date, the argument which was developed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) proved conclusively the impossibility of anybody making these hiving-off schemes, as they are called, without the complete knowledge of what are the final provisions of the Bill when it receives the Royal Assent. To attempt to do so before that is known would be useless and a waste of time, and therefore it is not a fair argument to say that all that can be undertaken at the present time with any degree of certainty.
What are the possible considerations other than the technical considerations of uncertainty? The right hon. Gentleman told us that this was not so difficult a Corporation, that it would not be so difficult to appoint the members because this Corporation was quite different from the Coal Board. He said, "It will have nothing to do; at any rate, it is completely changed in character. It is not actually charged with the amendment of anything. It is really a trustee or holding company which will hold the shares which will be transferred to it." I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is true that some few days ago the whole character of this Corporation


was completely changed by the Amendments which were made, and in Committee upstairs he never succeeded in making up his mind what kind of Corporation it was to be. We argued whether it was to be functional or nonfunctional, full-time, half-time, and all the rest of it. No degree of certainty has yet been reached because there may be amendments in the character of the Corporation as a result of further discussion.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), with a certain disingenuousness, which is his major charm, put his finger on the spot. He said that the real reason we are all arguing about the date is a political reason. There is a certain truth in that. Hon. Members opposite are absolutely determined so to use the last hours of their crumbling power with complete disregard—[An HON. MEMBER: "You cannot win a by-election."] You can only win London by a swindle—a real Lord President of the Council swindle, a swindle worthy of the third-rate political boss, as one member of the Cabinet calls another nowadays.

Dr. Morgan: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I ask whether the accusation that a Member can only win a certain constituency by a swindle is a Parliamentary term permissible in Debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I could not hear exactly what the right hon. Gentleman was saying because there was so much noise. I think he had better proceed with his speech.

Dr. Morgan: He did say it.

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member and I are old friends, and I should certainly not impute any specific accusation against him. This was a generalised accusation against the management of a particular territory in London.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that there are, as there must be, political as well as the technical considerations which I have advanced—political considerations which are in the minds of the whole House. What are the possible alternatives to the things that may happen? The vesting date, if it remains at May, 1950, may be after a General Election. I believe the Government must hold the Election by July,

1950. They may decide to hold it in the Autumn of this year. They may decide to have it in the Spring of next year. although I am bound to say that I should not have thought from the faces of hon. Members opposite the other day that they would be likely to have an Election without another Budget. But then Budgets can be arranged to suit the convenience of politics.
It may be just after an Election, although just after an Election is not really a convenient time because Ministers are anxiously awaiting the new setup which generally follows that great disturbance. That is not really a very good time to deal with so huge an undertaking as this. Of course, it may take place actually during the Election. The Election may be in May of next year. Ministers do their work under the most difficult circumstances, but it does not seem to me that during an Election is a very good time for the vesting date and the change-over of what is probably the most important industry in the country.
Of course, the other possible plan, and I think it is the plan which it would not be altogether ungenerous to suggest Ministers might be working, is that it should take place just five or six weeks before the General Election. How convenient it would then be in view of the whole history of this Bill. This vital Bill has been postponed from year to year and could easily have been taken earlier in the Parliament. Everyone knows that it was brought in only after great divisions in the Cabinet. Everyone knows that the master pusher-around had to push out the Minister of Supply and find a Minister to accept a Bill of this kind. Everyone knows that there was a battle backwards and forwards as to whether the whole steel industry or only some parts of it should be taken over, and that an attempt was made at a compromise, and that compromise is why this Bill is absolutely unworkable. The Bill cannot be worked in the form in which it was presented, and so this wonderful plan was made by the Lord President of the Council.
By that plan he can say, "You can all cheer, because we shall be able to say that we have carried out our mandate, and then, if we get in, everything will be all right." To the others, to the moderate people, that great centre part of the country which the right hon. Gentleman


is so anxiously wooing, he can say, "It is all right, because the country will be able to decide"—if he wins it is hardly worth bothering about the Bill at all, because he can just sell it to the Prudential. And so he has it both ways. To the extremist he can say that it has been a terrible rush; it has been necessary to work away for year after year only just to be able to fit it in. He can say to them, "We have got it in just within six weeks." What a lucky stroke, for to the others it is a free choice to the country and until the country decides, no final settlement can be made.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Is this rather ingenious analysis of political strategy in Order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it is quite relevant to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Macmillan: I will not delay the House any longer. I will put the hon. Member out of his pain. No doubt he is very worried and concerned, and he will, of course, have a great deal to explain. The only justification for all this is based upon the doctrine of the mandate. Can it seriously be argued that at the last Election there was a great and earnest desire for this Bill, and that it is the reason why many of the young men in the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force voted for Members opposite?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is now getting a little wide.

Mr. Macmillan: I will end by saying it is the doctrine of the mandate which the Government allege impels them to pass this Bill of such importance and make the vesting date what will probably be a few weeks or even a few days before the people of the country are allowed to make a decision. I say that that is a very wrong thing for a Government to do. I think that it is really a very wicked thing to do, and I do not think it will benefit them. I believe that in the long run, strongly as we may hold our political opinions on both sides, the people will not like what amounts to a kind of attempt at the last minute to deprive them of the right of decision, which all we democrats believe should be in the hands of the people and nowhere else.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Attewell: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) suggested that this Amendment should be accepted on the grounds that the hiving-off which must take place in many of the companies will take longer than had first been anticipated, and that the hiving-off could only be done between the time that the Bill reached the Statute Book and the vesting date. Is that a proposition which we should really take into consideration? If we look at the Second Schedule we find the activities mainly affected by this Bill. The first activity is:
The working and getting of iron ore";
the second is:
The smelting of iron ore in a blast furnace with or without other metalliferous materials.
and the third is:
The production in the form of ingots of steel.
When we come to the Third Schedule, we find the list of firms which, in the opinion of the Minister, conform to the Second Schedule activities. But when we come to analyse the memoranda of these companies, we find that they are engaged in activities other than the activities mentioned in the Third Schedule, and it is these activities which need to be hived-off. The hon. and gallant Member says that this will be an extremely difficult thing to do, and that we may have to have some special machinery. The answer to the hon. and gallant Member is to be found among Members opposite, because with their directorships in certain companies they are able to tell us precisely what these industries are that are to be hived-off. I suggest that very few of these industries to he hived-off will have any relation to the main activities contained in the Second Schedule.
I want to know just what is the difficulty in the matter if a company whose main business is connected with the activities set out in the Second Schedule has, for example. shipping or hotel interests. What is the difficulty in hiving-off in that case? We were given a long list of subsidiary industries the other day, the main purpose of the Opposition being to show that they had no relationship to the activities set out in the Second Schedule. We are asked to believe that hiving-off will be very difficult, though I suggest


that perhaps the best way to do it would be by means of a queen bee. In my inadequate way I have attempted to assist the passage of the Bill and to save Members in another place, friends of the Opposition, from having to do so much work. I am sure that we are all desirous of expediting the Bill and seeing it put on

the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 305; Noes, 155.

Division No. 113.]
AYES
[8.22 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Fairhurst, F.
Leonard, W.


Adams, Richard (Batham)
Farthing, W. J.
Leslie, J. R.


Albu, A. H.
Fernyhough, E.
Levy, B. W.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Follick, M.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Alpass, J. H.
Forman, J. C.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lindgren, G. S.


Attewell, H. C.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Austin, H. Lewis
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Logan, D. G.


Awbery, S. S.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Longden, F.


Ayles, W. H.
Gibbins, J.
Lyne, A. W.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Gibson, C. W.
McAdam, W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Gilzean, A.
McAllister, G.


Baird, J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McEntee, V. La T.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gooch, E. G.
McGhee, H. G


Barstow, P. G.
Goodrich, H. E.
McGovern, J.


Garton, C.
Gordon-Maker, P. C.
Mack, J. D.


Batlley, J. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Bechervaise, A. E
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Benson, G.
Grey, C. F.
McLeavy, F


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bing, G. H. C.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Binns, J.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Boardman, H.
Gunter, R. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.
Guy W. H.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hale, Leslie
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mothers, Rt. Hon. George


Brown, George (Belper)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mayhew, C. P.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hardman, D. R.
Messer, F.


Burden, T. W.
Hardy, E. A.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Burke, W. A.
Harrison, J.
Mikardo, Ian


Callaghan, James
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Haworth, J.
Mitchison, G. R.


Cheer, D.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Monstow, W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Cluse, W. S.
Hicks, G.
Morley, R.


Cobb, F. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Cocks, F S.
Holman, P.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Collick, P.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Collins, V. J.
Horabin, T. L
Mort, D. L.


Colman, Miss G M.
Houghton, A. L. N. D.
Moyle, A.


Cook, T. F.
Hoy, J
Murray. J. D.


Cooper, G.
Hubbard, T.
Nally, W.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Naylor, T. E.


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, Entrys (S. Ayr)
Neal, H. (Claycress)


Crawley, A.
Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton. W.)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Cullen, Mrs.
Hynd., H. (Hackney, C.)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Dagger, G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brantford)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Irving, W. J. [(Tottenham. N.)
O'Brien, T.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oldfield, W. H.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jay, D. P. T.
Oliver, G. H. 


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jager, G. (Winchester)
Pagel, R. T.


Deer, G
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jenkins, R. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Debbie, W
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Pargiter, G. A.


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Parker, J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, Jack (Bolton)
Parkin, B. T.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Keenan, W.
Patoet, J. (Norwich)


Dye, S.
Kenyon., C.
Pearson, A.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pearl, T. F.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
King, E. M.
Perrins, W.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Popplewell, E.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Kinley, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lang, G.
Price, M. Philips


Ewart, R.
Lavers, S.
Proctor, W. T.




Pryde, D. J.
Snow, J. W
Watkins, T. E.


Pursey, Comdr. H
Solley, L. J.
Watson, W. M.


Randall, H. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sn Frank
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Ranger, J.
Sparks, J. A
Weitzman, D.


Rankin, J.
Steele, T.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Reeves, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
West, D. G.


Rhodes H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. C. R (Lambeth)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinh'gh, E.)


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Swingler, S.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Roberts, A.
Sylvester, G. O.
Whiteley, Rt. 'Hon. W.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Symonds, A. L.
Wigg, George


Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)
Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A. B


Rogers, G. H, R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilkes, L.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Royle, C.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Scollan, T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
withams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Scott-Elliot, W
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Segal, Dr. S
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Shackleton., E. A. A
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Sharp, Granville
Timmons, J.
Willis, E.


Shawcross, C. N (Widnes)
Titterington, M. F.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Tolley, L.
Wilson, Rt. Han. J. H.


Silkin, Rt. Hon. L
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Wise, Major F. J.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Simmons, C. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Woods, G. S.


Skeffington, A. M.
Vernon, Maj. W. F
Wyatt, W.


Skeffingten-Lodge, T. C.
Viant, S. P.
Yates, V. F.


Skinnard, F. W.
Walkden, E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Walker, G. H.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Zilliacus, K.


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)



Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Warbey, W. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Mellor, Sir J.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Harden, J. R. E.
Molson, A. H. E.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge,)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bennett, Sir P.
Haughton, S. G.
Neill, Sir William (Belfast, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Head, Brig. A. H.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Bossom, A. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. S C.
Nicholson, G.


Bower, N.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nield., B. (Chester)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Odey, G. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hollis, M. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H,


Bullock, Capt. M.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Butcher, H. W.
Hope, Lord J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Butler, Rt. H.n. R A. (S'ffr'n W'd'n)
Howard, Hon. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Carson, E
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R S. (Southport)
Pickthorn, K.


Challen, C.
Hurd, A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O,


Clifton-Brawn, Lt.-Col. G.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Renton, D.


Cole, T. L.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Jennings, R.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Ropner, Col. L.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Shepherd, S. (Newark)


De la Bere, R.
Langford-Holt, J.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Smithery, Sir W.


Drayson, G. B
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Snadden, W. M.


Drewe, C.
Linstead, H. N.
Spearman, A. C. M


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lipson, D. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Eccles, D. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Low, A. R. W.
Studholme, H. G.


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E.L
Lucas-Tooth, S. H.
Teeling, William


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fox, Sir G.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
McFarlane, C. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thorp, Brigadier R A. F


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Maclay, Han. J. S.
Touche, G. C.


Gage, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Turtort, R. H.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


George, Maj. Rt. 'Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wadsworth, G.


Glyn, Sir R.
Marples, A. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Maude, J. C.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)







White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl
Colonel Wheatley and


Williams, C. (Torquay)
York, C.
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.


Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

8.30 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 9, line 3, to leave out "by the Corporation or."
This Amendment clears up a point raised on the Committee stage. The Opposition thought it would be right to leave out the words. I was doubtful at the time, but I think there is some point in the Amendment and there is general agreement on it.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am much obliged.

Mr. C. Williams: I think we ought to have a little more explanation about this. As an ordinary back bencher, when I find both Front Benches agreeing, I become slightly suspicious and, when the Minister says, "This happened in Committee," I have a feeling we have a right to know what happened. We ought to have an explanation of how the Front Opposition Bench managed to persuade the Minister. I know that the Front Bench of the Opposition are almost always right, but we might have the arguments here. After all, this Amendment is to cut out the Corporation and it is rather a big matter.

Mr. Strauss: Unless the House wants me to, I do not propose to help the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) to waste the time of the House. This matter was advocated by the Opposition. It is highly technical, but I could explain it at some length. If it is desired that I should take up the time of the Opposition by a long explanation, I shall do so, but I do not think that is the will of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 9, line 10, at the end, to insert:
and any person who is for the time being entitled to the principal of the loan or any part thereof may by notice given in writing to the Company within a period of twelve months from the date of transfer require repayment of the loan within a period of twenty-one days from the date of the notice and thereupon the loan shall be repayable within that period of twenty-one days together with interest (if any is payable on the loan) accruing up to the date of repayment.
We are now turning from rather higher questions to technical matters and I hope

we can get something from the Government which will enable us to pass on to matters of greater moment. The Clause as now drafted enables the Government to cancel the collateral security for a loan, without at the same time making any provision whereby a lender should be repaid. I think the point of the Minister about this in Committee was that the security the lender would have in these circumstances, is that he has passed from the advantages of being a lender with collateral security into having His Majesty's Government as his creditor.
I think that was the point which the Solicitor-General put in his usual very emollient way. It really does not meet the point because it may take a good deal of time and considerable expense to get the loan repaid. I quite admit that the ultimate security is undoubted, but those who have had experience of getting reclaimed tax, etc., even from His Majesty's Treasury, know that considerable delay is involved. Proceedings generally begin with "The matter will have attention." Then one hears nothing for a month or two, and one is very lucky if one gets anything in the way of cash out of any of His Majesty's Departments for overpayments or anything like that for 10 months or a year. The object of this Amendment is very simple: it is that where collateral security for the loan is cancelled, the lender has the right to be paid. I do not wish to go into more subtle arguments than that. I hope that the Government can see their way to accept this Amendment so that we can get on.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): If I may say so, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has quite accurately represented the effect of this Amendment, which proposes that a lender shall have the right to be repaid. As the Bill stands, if the lender has no collateral security his loan stands as before. He is entitled to be repaid in accordance with the terms of the loan. If the terms are that he can have it back in three months or at three months' notice he is still so entitled. If the loan cannot be called in for two years he has still to wait for two years. That is, in


ordinary circumstances, perfectly reasonable. He is left in the same position as before except in this respect: if his loan is secured by debentures or some other collateral security he loses that collateral security. Instead of that he is, by the Bill, given a far firmer security under the terms of Clause 48, because the Corporation themselves are made responsible for the debts of the publicly-owned companies. So, instead of having some form of collateral security against the publicly-owned company, he has the far firmer security of being entitled to proceed against the Corporation themselves in order to obtain repayment of his loan.
There is one exception to what I have been saying. There is a special class of loan for which special provision has been made by Clause 14, which was introduced in Committee as a result of discussions which took place there. That Clause is designed to deal with loans made particularly by the Finance Corporation for Industry, those loans being loans which give further incidental rights to the lending Corporation. They give the right to appoint directors, to convert the loan into shares of the company to which the loan is made, etc.
It was thought right and fair in the case of those particular loans, which were made for the purpose of financing the industry, that the Corporation should be put in the special position of being able to call for their loans on notice and get payment of the money earlier than would have been possible had they only been able to get it back in accordance with the terms of the loan. They are given a special right, on notice, to have the loan repaid within a comparatively short period. Those types of loan have been singled out for the reason that they were made for the purpose of financing the industry, and it would not be right that the loans should remain outstanding when the companies which they were designed to finance have passed into public ownership.
In the case of the ordinary loan that consideration does not apply. It is left exactly as before and the lender gets his loan back according to its terms. Under Clause 48, if he has a collateral security, he is given a still more reliable security in that he can go against the Corporation themselves which, by Statute, are made responsible to discharge the amount

of the loan. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Yes, but there is always such a lot of delay in obtaining repayment of a loan from a corporation of this sort." I really do not see why that should be. If there is a delay, if letters are not answered, or anything of that sort, the remedy is easy; one resorts to the courts, and by expeditious procedure, by using the ordinary Order No. 14 procedure, one can bring about an immediate result. One can get an almost immediate judgment unless there is a defence to the claim; if there is no defence to the claim, one can enforce the judgment at once against the Corporation, which are bound to pay. I think that, in justice, we have left the position as it should be left. The ordinary lender who has any consideration to urge is in exactly the same position as he was before. Therefore, I hope the House will agree that this Amendment ought not to be accepted.
No special case has been made out for the ordinary lender. We have provided by Clause 14 for a special class of loan. Clause 14 was submitted to and approved by the Finance Corporation for Industry. It was also submitted to and agreed to by the Committee of the London Clearing Bankers. We are not aware of any other loan or any other lender who could urge special considerations such as those that were urged by the Finance Corporation for Industry. There is no other loan which has any special characteristics of that sort of which we are aware, and, having submitted the matter to the body representing the bankers we have every reason to suppose that it is very unlikely that there are special lenders who can urge special claims of that sort. For these reasons, I hope the House will agree that the Amendment shall not be accepted.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am becoming very suspicious of the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General because he is so polite and persuasive on these matters that I am quite sure that before we are very much older, I am going to accept something he says which I should not do. But, on this occasion I should like to ask him this question. Supposing the terms of a loan are that if the collateral security should fall below a Certain point the loan becomes payable, can he say whether the fact that the Government have cancelled the collateral security would enable the


lender to come straight on to the Corporation?

The Solicitor-General: Supposing that an ordinary lender, that is to say, a non-Clause 14 lender,. desires to obtain repayment of his loan, and he has a collateral security, a charge upon the assets of the borrower, or some other form of collateral security, and supposing he finds, owing to the shrinkage of the assets on which the security is charged, that the security is not likely to be adequate to secure repayment of the full amount of the loan—

Mr. Lyttelton: indicated dissent.

The Solicitor-General: I thought that was the question which the right hon. Gentleman was asking.

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon, but I was saying that if the terms of the loan are that the collateral security must be maintained at x, and then, on the cancellation of the security by the Government, that particular security for the loan should not be present, the lender has the right to at once reclaim his money from the Corporation.

The Solicitor-General: It depends upon the exact terms of the loan, bat if under the terms there is a right to repayment the lender can at once first demand repayment from the company, and, if the company does not pay, he can obtain judgment, and that judgment must be met by the Corporation. It is bound to be met.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not happy about this, and I think it would have been much better to make the loans payable the moment the collateral security is removed by the Government. However, after what the Solicitor-General has said, I do not wish to press the point much further, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 9, line 47, at the end, to insert:
or any company in whose case—

(i) the average annual output during the said years of the products of each of the said activities carried on by the company on the said day, being the output of works

operated by the company on the said day, was less than fifty thousand tons; and
(ii) the total number of persons employed by the company on the said day wholly or mainly for the purposes of the said activities was not more than 15 per cent. of the total number of persons employed by the company on that day."
Since the introduction of the Bill it has been represented to us on a number of occasions by various bodies, including the Opposition, that the formula embodied in the Bill under which certain iron and steel works come over to the Corporation, was drawn in such a way as to include a number of smaller companies which should not come within the family over which the Corporation will preside.
I must admit straight away that we had considerable difficulty, when we gave careful thought to this problem, in deciding what section of the iron and steel industry should properly come under the Corporation. We were anxious that there should be sufficient companies representing a large enough section of the iron and steel industry to enable the Corporation to organise into an integrated whole in an easy and convenient way those over which they had control. It was essential, therefore, that the Corporation should take over the major section of the iron and steel industry. On the other hand, we were also anxious that the Corporation should not be the owner of companies which were really outside the iron and steel industry because of the various ancillary or other activities in which the companies were engaged, and the possession of which would only create burdens and difficulties for the Corporation which they would be much better without.
We have given this matter careful consideration to see whether there were any companies whose shares it was proposed should be taken over by the Corporation which, in the interests of those companies, and in the interests of the Corporation, might properly be left out. We came to the conclusion that there were a few companies in the iron and steel industry, originally listed in the Third Schedule, which were small companies and which, because of their peculiar activities, were so far outside the iron and steel industry that they would be more of a nuisance inside than a benefit because they would throw certain responsibilities upon the Corporation which the Corporation would


be much better without so that they could be devoting their time to the work of organising and reorganising and improving the iron and steel industry instead.
We came to the conclusion, after careful consideration, that those companies which we thought should be properly excluded all fell within a certain formula which is set out in the Amendment. In other words, all those companies whose total output is less than 50,000 tons a year and whose proportion of labour devoted to Second Schedule activities is less than 15 per cent. could, we thought, conveniently be left out of the Third Schedule. I will inform the House which those firms are and what are their major occupations. Bayliss, Jones and Bayliss, Limited. Only 12 per cent. of their labour is engaged or was engaged in making iron and steel or in Second Schedule activities. Their chief activities are the production of bolts, nuts, tramway and railway fencings, gates, and a variety of other highly-finished products.
Then there is the Carron Company. Only 4 per cent. of their labour is engaged on Second Schedule activities; most of their activities are concerned with the making of ferrous and non-ferrous articles of a great variety, and they have various engineering activities. They produce a wide range of finished iron and brass goods, and marine and land machinery and equipment. They have a small and, I believe, an obsolescent blast furnace, for which alone they were included in the Schedule, because the output of that furnace was such as to bring them into the formula set out in that Schedule. Then there is the Clay Cross Company. Their main activities are the production of centrifugally cast and concrete lined pipes, vertically cast pipes, and flanged special castings. Only 10 per cent. of the labour in those works is engaged in Second Schedule activities.
The next company that is excluded—or rather appears to be excluded: it is not really—is the Darlington Forge Limited, which is excluded by the formula but will, nevertheless, be taken over because it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the English Steel Corporation, and so will come out of the list in the Third Schedule but will, in fact, come under the Corporation just the same. The

next company is The Executors of James Mills, a subsidiary of Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds. Of their labour 14 per cent. only is engaged in Second Schedule activities. They are primarily concerned in the production of a wide variety of small accessories such as cotters and grooved pins mainly for the motor, aircraft, electrical engineering, and shipbuilding industries, and for scaffolding fittings for the building industry. The last company is Richard Johnson and Nephew, of whose labour seven per cent. is engaged in Second Schedule activities. They make ferrous wire, but a very substantial proportion—more than half—of non-ferrous products.
We felt that these companies were very much on the fringe of the iron and steel industry proper as we envisaged it, and that they could, as I said earlier, to the advantage of the Corporation, be well left outside. We gave this matter most careful thought. I want to say quite definitely and categorically that we are not prepared to extend this list of exclusions. We are certain that in making these exclusions we have gone as far as we ought, and should not go any farther. I made the exclusions, not because of any representations made to us by the companies, but because, on an impartial survey of the situation, and of the activities that these companies were carrying on, we thought we did not want to burden the Corporation with any responsibility for them, and that it would be better to leave them out, and to leave the Corporation free to carry that very heavy responsibility which will be on their shoulders in the organisation of those very large iron and steel concerns for which they will be responsibile.

Mr. Harrison: My right hon. Friend did not mention the Staveley Iron and Chemical Company, Limited. I was under the impression that that particular company had been excluded on something like the formula included in the present Amendment.

Mr. Strauss: No. That is a quite different situation. That has nothing to do with this formula at all. There were certain companies that were put into the Schedule because we were not aware—we could not be aware—whether those companies were actually operating, or had the ownership of iron and steel works.


In some cases we had to put in both the parent and subsidiary companies because we were not quite sure which was the owner of a particular works. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that that company has nothing to do with the proposal which I am now putting before the House.

Mr. Peake: We quite understand the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman finds himself. He originally selected the names of 106 companies which are concerned in the iron and steel industry, and he then had to frame a definition, contained in Clause 11 (3), which will include those companies and no others. There is already a proviso in subsection (3) which states:
Provided that the said Third Schedule does not include any company whose main activity on the said day consisted of the manufacture of motor vehicles.
That proviso, of course, is there to exclude the Ford Motor Works at Dagenham from the operation of the Bill.
Now we are met with this position. The right hon. Gentleman has decided to take an additional six companies out of the Third Schedule of the Bill. We would, of course, welcome the exclusion of any additional companies from the Third Schedule because, in our view, it would be better to have no Third Schedule at all, and in fact to have no Bill; but the right hon. Gentleman, having decided on quite arbitrary grounds to exclude these additional companies from the scope of the Bill, has now to alter his definition contained in subsection (3), and the words on the Order Paper are designed to create a new definition which will have the effect' of separating the six small companies to which the Minister has referred from the other companies in the Schedule.
It would appear that there are two conditions to be satisfied now in order that a company may be excluded from the Third Schedule. The two new conditions, in addition to the conditions previously in the Bill, are that the average annual output during the basic years of the products of Second Schedule activities are less than 50,000 tons; and—this condition has also to be fulfilled—that the total number of persons employed by the company on a particular day for the purpose of Second Schedule activities was

not more than 15 per cent. of the total number of persons employed by the company.
Both these conditions had to be fulfilled in order to secure the exclusion of the six additional companies from the Schedule. The only question that I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman at this stage is: If any other company whose name at present appears in the Schedule can prove to him that it satisfies those two new conditions which he proposes to include in the Bill, will he, at a later stage, also take the name of that company out of the Third Schedule?

Sir Ian Fraser: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the same question the other way round. The Minister said that no other company could be added to these six new companies to be excluded. If that is so, what is the point of having a definition? Why not rely on excluding them by name?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We must go on some principle. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It may be peculiar to hon. Members opposite, but that is the way we proceed. The situation is this: I have it on the highest possible authority, which is the authority of the Iron and Steel Federation, that there are no other companies which will come into this definition, and, therefore, this question does not really arise.

Mr. Henry Strauss: The intervention by the hon., Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) is, in my submission, very much in point. The Amendment which the Minister is moving to subsection (3) may improve that subsection in his contemplation. If we omitted the whole of subsection (3) it would make absolutely no difference in law to the operation of this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at subsection (1)—to which I refer on this point of the argument, without elaborating it—he will see that what is taken over are
all securities of the companies specified in the Third Schedule.
9.0 p.m.
Those are the only operative words in deciding what is taken over.
Subsection (3) is inserted merely to suggest to the House or to the public that there is some sort of principle


operating in the Government's mind. The opening words of that subsection are:
The companies specified in the Third Schedule to this Act are, subject as hereinafter provided, those which in the Minister's opinion fulfil the conditions set out.
Should the Minister's opinion be wholly wrong, there is no sort of remedy available to anybody to put him right. The only operative thing is the Schedule, and if anybody moved to omit subsection (3) the Government could accept such an Amendment without making one iota of difference to the operation of this Bill. If the Minister doubts that, I ask him to consult the learned Solicitor-General now sitting next to him, who I am certain will confirm that opinion.

Mr. Mikardo: I hope that my right hon. Friend, and any other Members of His Majesty's Government who may at any time be tempted to make concessions to the opinion of the Opposition and representations made by the Opposition, will take note of their attitude in respect of the matter we have just been discussing. In Committee, when we were discussing this Clause a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite argued that the definition in the Clause was much too wide, that it included a number of companies who ought not to be included in a Bill of this sort. To illustrate their point they quoted some of the very companies which the Minister has just mentioned, giving information about their products and the proportion of those products which were Second Schedule activities, about their total pay rolls and the proportion of the total pay rolls which concerned Second Schedule activities. They used the very information which my right hon. Friend has just repeated to the House as an argument for saying that this Clause ought to be amended.
Along comes my right hon. Friend, impressed by those arguments, to do precisely what the Opposition asked him to do in Committee, to be met, first by a speech from the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) suggesting that this is a rather shabby sort of expedient, and secondly by a series of jeers from hon. but rather less learned Members behind the Opposition Front Bench. If that is the sort of behaviour of the Opposition when concessions are made to them, I repeat the earnest hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will

bear this in mind on future similar occasions.

Mr. Peake: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I did not say one word in opposition to the Amendment. All I pointed out was that we had to alter the definition in order to make it fit the facts. Of course, everybody knows that the whole purpose of this definition Clause is to prevent this Bill from being a hybrid Bill and giving these companies an opportunity of taking objection.

Mr. Mikardo: I did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had opposed the Amendment before the House. All I had suggested was that the praise with which he damned it was very faint indeed.

Mr. C. Williams: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) for making one thing perfectly clear. This Amendment seems to be a good one. The hon. Member for Reading says it is entirely due to the industry and the ability of the Opposition. I accept that as an illustration of how good the Opposition is. He then proceeded to advise the Government that when they had done a good thing they should not do a little more. The only thing I doubt now, especially after the speech of the hon. Member for Reading, is whether it would not be very much better if, instead of taking out three or four firms as we are now doing, a new Amendment were introduced on the advice of the Opposition to extract the whole of the firms. If the Government did that and brought in a completely blank Bill, it would be something sensible to show to the country.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(EFFECT OF TRANSFER OF SECURITIES TO CORPORATION.)

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 10, line 8, after "entitled," to insert "or subject."
I do not want to take up the time of the House unless the Opposition want me to do so in moving what are more or less drafting Amendments asked for by the Opposition during the Committee stage.

Mr. Peake: This with the Amendments to lines 10 and 15 go together. They were points pressed by the Opposition during the Committee stage, and we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for inserting them on Report.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 10, after "advantages," insert:
and of the liabilities and obligations.
In line 15, leave out "and advantages," and insert:
advantages, liabilities and obligations."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

Clause 13.—(DISCLAIMER OF AGREEMENTS AND LEASES.)

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to move in page 10, line 25, to leave out "on or."
I suggest that it would be convenient if this Amendment and that to the same line which follows were considered together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I agree.

Mr. Lloyd: The effect of these two Amendments on the wording of the Clause would be that it would read:
Where any company which comes into public ownership under this Part of this Act has made or varied an agreement or lease after the date of the passing of the Act and before the date of transfer …
Clause 13 is one of the Clauses which some hon. Members would look upon as a lawyer's Clause, rather like Clause 7, for which we had such a ridiculously short time for discussion. In fact, it is a Clause very wide in its effect because it covers every contract or agreement—I ask hon. Members not to be frightened by the use of the word "lease" in the Clause—of any sort or kind whether it is relating to the renting or leasing of property or the purchase of material, or whether it is a service agreement, provided they have not expired at the date of the passing of the Act. Therefore, my first contention that this Clause is of very wide effect is borne out.
It is impossible for the House to consider the Amendments properly without some idea of the general purpose of the Clause as a whole. Obviously, it is ridiculous to discuss the dates between which the provisions of the Clause are to be effective unless it is known what the Clause is about. As I have already indicated, the Clause relates to every kind of agreement into which any company which comes into public ownership has entered provided that the agreement was made or varied on or after a particular date, and if—I would ask the House to note these phrases—

the Corporation are of the opinion
that the making or variation of the agreement or lease
was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the activities of the company,
or that it was made or varied
with an unreasonable lack of prudence on the part of the company, regard being had in either case to the circumstances at the time,
the company shall if so required by the Corporation, give notice of disclaimer to the other parties to the agreement or lease. That is the first point in explanation of the Amendments which I am putting to the House. The House will note that subsection (1) also deals with the possibility of arbitration, if there is some disagreement between the parties in regard to the matters to which I have referred.
Subsection (2) deals with what the arbitration tribunal may do. Again there is reference to the phrase
not reasonably necessary,
and to the phrase that the agreement
was made or varied with an unreasonable lack of prudence.
There is a further new proviso to the effect that if the arbitration tribunal is satisfied of the matters aforesaid but is also satisfied
that the making or variation of the agreement or lease was a proper transaction made in the ordinary course of business, regard being had to the circumstances at the time,
and was in no way connected with any part of the provisions of the Act, the tribunal can revoke the notice. I mention that fact in fairness to the Government because it is an important addition to the powers of the tribunal. Subsection (3) deals with the consequences of such a notice, given as required by the Corporation and if necessary supported by the tribunal. It says that when such a notice has been given, the agreement shall be
deemed to be frustrated or, as the case may be, the lease shall be deemed to be surrendered, on the date on which the notice of disclaimer becomes final,
and the parties thereto for that reason are to be discharged from further performance of their obligations. I shall mention again—and I must say that it is a somewhat technical matter from the legal point of view—the consequences of that word "frustration."
The only other effect of the Clause which is relevant to the question of the date is in subsection (5) where it says that where there has been a reference to arbitration, the tribunal
 shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine claims arising under the agreement or lease,
and that the tribunal
 may, in the case of a lease, on the application of either party thereto, make such modifications (if any) of the provisions of the lease, relating to repairing obligations or any other provisions.
as they think are just. It is obvious that if the Clause goes through it will be of very wide effect indeed.
9.15 p.m.
The next matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is the question of the dates. The Government seek to put this very extensive power of antedated frustration back to 21st October, 1947. The first thing we have to consider is the reason for the choice of that date. We heard the Minister of Supply speak about it during the Committee stage. I know that the reason which the Government put forward for that date is that the Prime Minister on 21st October, 1947, made an extremely vague and guarded statement about the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry. He made some statement which did not disclose in the least the extent to which this Measure would go. One must ask where this principle of selecting a date will stop. If any pronouncement by any Minister is some two years afterwards to be fixed as an operative date, it seems to me that very great dangers are involved from the constitutional and political points of view.
The beginning of the period is 21st October, 1947, according to the Government's intention. The end of the period may be 18 months after 1st May, 1950. We may therefore have all contracts and agreements entered into between 21st October. 1947, and November, 1951. affected. That is a four-year period, less than one-half of which has already passed and more than one-half of which is still to come. We suggest that instead of it being 21st October, 1947, it should he the date of the passing of the Act. If I may anticipate a comment which may be made, it will be that it would have been much better to state the date as that of

the introduction of the Act or at least of the Second Reading of the Bill. In certain circumstances that would be a reasonable contention, but we have seen how this Bill has been completely altered from stage to stage. The Government have introduced such radical alterations in the provisions of the Bill as compared with those that were in it when it went up to the Standing Committee that it is very much more prudent and reasonable to take the date we suggest, the date of the passing of the Bill. Only then will people have a real idea of its terms. If hon. Members look at the alterations which have been made in the Bill since it went to the Committee, they will see the force of my suggestion that it would be wiser to take the date of the passing of the Act.
What will be the effect of this portion of the Clause if it is not altered? The first consequence is that it is bound to put into a state of complete uncertainty those who are seeking contracts with publicly-owned companies which come within the meaning of the Clause. In answer to that point during the Committee stage, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had given a perfectly clear indication that the Government or the Corporation would support any reasonable contracts entered into by any of these bodies. That may be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, but the Clause will mean the examination of almost an infinity of individual bargains; and with regard to these matters it is extremely easy to be wise after the event and to say, looking back on it, that a thing was not reasonably necessary. What does "necessary" mean? I suppose it means "essential," a word of which we have heard something in other parts of the Bill. It is very easy to say afterwards that a thing was not really reasonably essential for the carrying on of the business. It is also easy to criticise when one is in possession of the subsequent facts—and this applies to a great many criticisms on general matters which hon. Members opposite often make—and it is easy after the event to accuse a person of "unreasonable lack of prudence."
I say, therefore, that many of these companies which may become publicly-owned and those who contract with them will be in a considerable state of uncer-


tainty as to whether or not their contracts will be repudiated. If it is not amended, this Clause will involve an attack upon the sanctity of contract. It is like a great many other attacks which the Government have made in the course of their history. I believe that they have made a series of attacks in the sphere of finance upon thrift, and in this field they are making a series of attacks upon the rule of law. These attacks are all the worse because a good many hon. Members opposite are quite sincerely unconscious of the fact that they are making such attacks.
This business of making people suspicious and uncertain whether bargains entered into will be carried out, of giving a public body the right, possibly years after the contract has been entered into, of coming along and disclaiming it, is I say, an attack upon the sanctity of contract and is an extremely serious matter. The effect of a disclaimer in accordance with the provisions of this Clause is that the contract becomes frustrated, which means that the party to it, which may have suffered damage by reason of the contract being frustrated, has no right of any sort against the Corporation or against the publicly-owned company with which it contracted. That is the consequence of the use of the word "frustration" to which I referred earlier.
The defence of the Clause generally, as put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, is, I think, first of all, that it is in accordance with precedent. Of course, there has been a precedent for every sort of crime for a very long time. There are plenty of precedents for robbery and treachery and for every sort of squalid, discreditable conduct, and the mere fact that there are precedents for this sort of thing is no serious argument at all. The much more substantial argument which, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman will put forward is that the object of the Clause is to prevent people from deliberately attempting to evade the purpose of the Bill. So far as I am concerned on that issue, I think we in this House accept such an intention—and I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, making one of his rare visits to our proceedings—and we certainly accept in the realm of tax evasion that we retrospectively endeavour to make attempts at

evasion nugatory. I agree that in a contract entered into deliberately in order to evade the provisions of this Bill, it is quite right that the Corporation should have power to deal with such an agreement or such a contract, but it does not follow from that that in all agreements and all contracts these criteria, these wide terms—reasonably necessary, or unreasonable lack of prudence—should be introduced. These are quite different criteria from that of a deliberate attempt to evade the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Mikardo: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). He is one of the few lawyers I know who can make a legal argument intelligible to a simple layman like myself. May I put a point to him? He said it is always difficult to determine after the event whether the thing was reasonably prudent or something of that sort. But difficult as that is, at least it is making a judgment upon matters of fact. What he is now saying is that it would be right if we said we would frustrate only contracts which were deliberate evasions. Surely, in order to decide whether a certain contract was entered into deliberately as an evasion, one would have to judge upon the motives of the person carrying out the action? Surely, he would agree it is always much more difficult after the event to judge about people's motives than to judge about their actions.

Mr. Lloyd: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for the compliment he has paid me, and echoing the well-known classical words of warning about certain people bringing gifts, I would say that the answer to his point is this. Of course, it is more difficult to prove the state of a man's mind than to prove a certain concrete fact; but the courts are constantly having to try to do that. Every offence involving fraud also carries with it the intent to defraud, which is an essential ingredient in the offence and has to be proved. In this realm it is a matter which the courts are having to do all the time. I concede that it is difficult, but on the whole this is a field in which, if there is a guilty intent, it should be proved according to the ordinary canons on the criminal law. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo).
I was dealing with the second objection to our Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman might be expected to put forward. I concede that, as far as deliberate evasion is concerned, it is right that there should be such a Clause, but this Clause goes too far. Thirdly, it will be said that this is really no new thing, because the principle of disclaimer is already well-known in view of the provisions of the Companies Acts and of the Bankruptcy Acts. It is already well-known in cases where a company is wound up or goes into liquidation, or where an individual becomes bankrupt, that contracts can be disclaimed. That is a very obvious result. If someone goes out of business the natural effect is that any contracts he has entered into cannot be carried on, and it is obvious that the liquidator, or the trustee in bankruptcy or whoever it may be, should have the right to disclaim such contracts.
There are, however, certain important safeguards to that right. First, there are clear-cut provisions regarding applications to the court as to the conditions under which that disclaimer can take place. Second—this is a point to which I attach particular importance—the person injured by the operation of the disclaimer has the right to become a creditor of the company to the extent of the injury he has suffered by that disclaimer. It is that right which does not exist under the provisions of the Clause. To my mind it is something which most certainly should exist in the interests of all those who are entering into these various types of contract with these public companies. This is a point of real importance and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think about the whole matter again.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to second the Amendment, which was so ably moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd).
I should like to bring two or three points to the notice of the House and to attempt to convince the Government, if I can, that there are provisions in the Clause which are foolish, even from, their own point of view. Even assuming that they will carry out the main features of this Measure, in spite of all the arguments against it, need they do something that is so injurious to the general commercial interests of this country as throwing

genuine doubts on the sanctity of contracts? I wonder what hon. Members would think if some foreign Government were acting in this way and thereby injuring British interests.
I criticise this Clause and support the Amendment on three main grounds. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that no doubt the Government require some provision to prevent acts committed after the passage, or possibly the introduction, of their Measure which would tend to frustrate their objects. But what have they done? From what day do they date the contracts with which they seek to interfere? They provide a date the only reason for the choice of which was that the Prime Minister then announced that the Government proposed in this Parliament
 to nationalise the relevant portions of the iron and steel industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 33.]
He announced that without indicating what the relevant portions were, or what was under consideration. If that vague announcement is to be sufficient for the choice of a date after which all contracts can be called into question, let me take the analogy of a foreign statesman making a vague announcement of some impending legislation and thereupon, years later, introducing a Measure under which all contracts legitimately made thereafter can be called in question. I say that that date is obviously and clearly wrong.
Let me proceed to the ground on which these contracts can be called in question. The ground is not that the agreement was bad, or malevolent, or that there was anything blameworthy of any kind—indeed it may be extremely praiseworthy—but it is sufficient to call it in question if it were "not reasonably necessary." It might be wholly desirable and completely in the national interest, but it can still be interfered with if it was "not reasonably necessary." The words referring to "lack of prudence" are not connected with "and" but with "or." Surely the Government do not wish to take power to interfere with agreements and contracts which are desirable in the national interest and entirely free from blame, merely on the grounds that they were not essential.
My hon. and learned Friend rightly drew attention to the words of the proviso to subsection (2) which provide a possible


escape even if those words apply. But that involves a transference of onus and a general throwing into doubt of the sanctity of contract and the continued validity of agreements which is bound to be against the interests of a great commercial country. Why are the Government taking this step? It is extremely unlikely that many contracts will be affected. For the sake of one or two with which they may possibly wish to interfere, and which they might define much more narrowly, they are casting doubts on an enormous number of agreements made over a long series of years.
The only safeguarding provision, which is no doubt designed to make the thing a little more tolerable, is subsection (7), which I mention in fairness to the Government to show that it is possible to avoid some of these consequences by consulting the Minister in advance as to whether various agreements or variations are right or wrong. That is no sufficient safeguard and is no defence whatever for the Clause as it stands. For those reasons, I ask the Government to reconsider this Clause.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment. I think it is agreed in all quarters of the House that Parliament must take steps to prevent its intentions from being frustrated. It is probably also generally agreed that it is within the power of a board of directors of a company which is to come under public ownership to undertake certain actions—dissipate the assets, make leases and agreements of various sorts—which would, if carried out, frustrate the intentions of Parliament.
We are really only discussing one question in connection with these Amendments. We say that any agreement or any lease entered into as from 21st October, 1947, can be challenged by the Corporation if it appears to them that such lease or agreement was made—I am paraphrasing the words—unnecessarily in view of the circumstances of the times, and the intention of which—I know that the word "intention" does not appear in the Clause—was to evade the intentions of Parliament. I know that those are not the words that appear in the Clause. What Parliament must do, and what we are doing here, is to prevent a company from entering into an agreement such as one to give a pension of £20,000 a year

to a managing director or something of that sort, which may be perfectly legal but which would in fact be with the obvious intention—though intention cannot, of course, be proved—of anticipating this Bill if it were passed by Parliament.
The only difference between the Opposition and ourselves on this Amendment is that we say that any such, what I will for brevity call, "funny" agreement or lease, can be challenged if it is made on or after 21st October, 1947. Those who move the Amendment for the Opposition say "Yes, but such an agreement or lease should only be challenged if it is made after the date of the passage of the Bill." That is the only difference between us. I say that, accepting the principle that we must protect ourselves in this matter, and that we cannot allow things to happen which will weaken the powers and resources of the Corporation, it is wholly unreasonable to make the operative date that of the passage of the Bill instead of the date on which the whole industry was told definitely and clearly that a nationalisation Measure was to be brought before Parliament by the Government. In all the previous nationalisation Measures we have had a similar Clause to prevent the intentions of Parliament from being frustrated. Such a Clause has always dated back to the date when the industry concerned has had a clear indication from the Government, either through the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister, that that industry was to be nationalised. In this case a very precise statement—not the vague statement as has been suggested by the hon. and learned Members for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss)—was made by the Prime Minister on 21st October, 1947.
 I believe there is an overwhelming case in the national interest, and I would like to say, in order to avoid any doubt there might be, that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government in the present Parliament to nationalise the relevant portions of the iron and steel industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 33.]

Mr. H. Strauss: The relevant portions.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I do not think there was any need to define at that stage what were the exact proportions. That statement told the whole iron and steel industry that it was the intention of the Government to nationalise large portions


of it, and if after that date any peculiar lease was entered into, or any agreement was made, it is open, I suggest rightly, to the challenge of the Corporation. If the person who made it thinks it was a perfectly proper and prudent one, and that under the circumstances of the time it should have been made, he can, of course, appeal, and the matter will be settled by arbitration.
But unless there is a provision of this sort in the Bill, it would be quite possible for all sorts of wrong contracts to be entered into unnecessarily, or, maybe, for the passing of money in the possession of firms to private individuals or for the making of agreements which would be wholly harmful to the activities of the Corporation without any right of challenge whatsoever. I suggest, therefore—and I think the House will agree—that if any such peculiar contract was entered into after the industry as a whole had received notice that nationalisation would take place, it is right that those contracts should be able to be examined so that the people responsible should not get away with it, and so that the intentions of Parliament should not be wholly frustrated. That can only be done by a Clause such as this.

Mr. H. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman spoke about "peculiar contracts" being entered into. I am sure he does not wish to mislead the House by a paraphrase which is not a fair one, but if he will look at the words in the Bill he will see that the agreements that can be interfered with are any agreements which were not reasonably necessary. They may have been desirable and in the national interest, but they can still be interfered with. How can he justify that?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I was describing the type of agreement that was likely to be challenged. The industry knows perfectly well—it has been fully stated —that no contract nor lease entered into in the normal course of business will he challenged. If any company has any doubt about any such contracts into which it proposes to enter, it can ask my opinion, and if I say, "That is obviously O.K.," there is no likelihood of a challenge taking place later, and it has nothng to worry about. 
In point of fact, there is no indication whatever from the industry that boards of

directors are in the slightest bit disturbed by this Clause. They know perfectly well that no ordinary business agreement is likely to be challenged by the Corporation. The number of applications submitted to me for my opinion regarding any unusual type of contract has been extraordinarily small. That does not surprise me because I do not anticipate that there will be any widespread attempt, or, indeed, any attempt at all, on the part of boards of directors to take advantage of the situation and to get away with some agreement or some clause which might be to their personal interest and to the detriment of the Corporation. But we are taking over a very large number of companies, and it is only right that we should take full precautions in case there are some black sheep somewhere who might try to frustrate the intentions of Parliament.
9.45 p.m.
We are arguing, as I say, solely on the question of date. Is it right that we should look back to any such contract or agreement as from the date of the announcement by the Prime Minister of nationalisation, or should we only look back from the date of the passage of the Act? If we are to take these powers at all—and apparently there is complete agreement that we should, although some hon. Members disagree with the exact wording of the Clause which I think is exceedingly wise, I suggest it is almost self-evident that those powers must date back to the time when the nationalisation of the industry was precisely and definitely announced by the Government.
Therefore, I ask the House to reject his Amendment. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that if anybody is aggrieved they have power to appeal to arbitration. I ask them to bear in mind that there is no danger whatsoever to any normal business contract which takes place and that there is no worry or anxiety in the industry about this Clause as far as we can tell. It is a wise, precautionary measure, and we would not be doing our duty to Parliament if we allowed any individual company to get away with agreements or contracts the purpose and result of which was to frustrate what Parliament had in mind and intended.

Mr. David Renton: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, could he say from his recollection,


as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport at the time, whether the Transport Act contained a similar provision, and if so, whether there was any attempt to make make a retrospective date as there is on this occasion?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Transpor Act, the Electricty Act and the Gas Act had similar provisions, and in all those Acts the relevant date was 19th November, 1945—a long time before those Measures were introduced into the House.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: There have been two remarkable aspects of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The first was his total inability or lack of desire to deal with the points that were marshalled so formidably by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). The second was the extreme difficulty—most unusual in the case of the right hon. Gentleman—in finding appropriate language to describe his own Bill. For the moment I was a trifle puzzled when the right hon. Gentleman referred to "funny contracts." In most of our nurseries a distinction is drawn between "funny ha-ha" and "funny peculiar." And I was relieved that in a short time the right hon. Gentleman condescended to inform us that "funny peculiar" was the sense in which he was referring to the contract. I think we on this side of the House are entitled to say that "funny ha-ha" will be the inevitable verdict of posterity on the wording of this Clause.
Now let me take the points because, after all, this is a serious matter, and even the right hon. Gentleman cannot contemplate another invasion of the sanctity of contracts without at any rate a prima facie justification for it. First I will take the question of time. I should be the last—and if I were not the last, I should be the first to be reminded of it—to deny that all governments bring in retroactive legislation at some time, and every Law Officer has had to do it with regard to the Finance Acts dealing with tax evasion. However, I put this principle forward as quite unchallengeable; that the justification for retroactive legislation is that a reasonable and definite warning has been given to people likely to practice the matter to be struck at, and they have

been given the opportunity to avoid that course.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if that warning was given in 1931?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The glorious vagueness of the right hon. Gentleman's connotation makes his question difficult to answer in the limited time.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not take the allusion, may I remind him that the judges had their salaries reduced, and all the men in the Navy, too, and that they were sacred contracts in each case?

Hon. Members: There was a Socialist Prime Minister.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to bring to our memory the disastrous situation to which the conduct of his friends brought the country, and the extremely stringent and unpalatable course that had to be taken, the right hon. Gentleman can sup on his own memories, but he will not, with all his friendly, tangential charm, make me wander from my own discussion.
I want to come back to the lack of answer of the Minister. And first I come back to the question of the warning and the time. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the words of the Prime Minister, when he expressed in October, 1947, the intention to nationalise the relevant portions of the industry. The right hon. Gentleman has conveniently forgotten that in May of 1946 his predecessor spent some hours in this House, to the mystification of the Members of every party, trying to clarify his own mind as to what portions might be relevant. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) concluded, after that demonstration of relevance, that 5 per cent. of the industry might, if it were very clever, know if it was in danger of nationalisation or not. After that exhibition, for the right hon. Gentleman tonight to come forward and say that vague words about relevant operations are a warning to wantons about the possibility of retroactive legislation, is something beyond even his imaginative discourses which have so delighted us all.
Let us just pursue that for a moment. He has left entirely unanswered and unargued the point which my hon. and


learned Friend made, that there would be four years of contracts. Then he goes sliding from that undefended position to one which he seeks to defend. "Well, anyway," he says, "the House is agreed, all parts of the House are agreed, that if there are deliberate attempts to evade they should be guarded against." Of course, my hon. and learned Friend said that he was prepared to accept that. If the right hon. Gentleman will agree in another place to alter this Clause to the wording which my hon. and learned Friend suggested, we shall be quite agreeable. The interesting thing is that the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to peruse his words in HANSARD, will find that the vague and incorrect paraphrase which he gave of the words of the Clause were indeed an approximation to the words suggested by my hon. and learned Friend.
Will he tell us, or will he consider before the Bill reaches another stage, what has he really in mind? If he has in mind, as his paraphrase tonight suggested, that he is really out to catch intended deliberate evasion, then let him put that in the Bill, and we shall help him, and with the greatest eagerness. But if that was a mere façon de parler, based on incomplete understanding of his own Clause, let me remind him of what his own Clause says. It does not say anything, as he admitted, about intention. What it says is this. It must either be:
 not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the activities of the company—
—or the alternative. There is no question of intention there. That is the objective test. It will afterwards be ex cathedra in the atmosphere of events years after the events under which the contract is made.
Let us take the alternative:
 unreasonable lack of prudence on the part of the company…
The right hon. Gentleman really must not attempt to get away with the affectation of being a simpleton to the House which knows him so well. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that there is all the difference in the world between negligence and intention. It is one of the clearest differences in conception that can exist, and these words say:
unreasonable lack of prudence…
The right hon. Gentleman says, with a

wonderful fly-away air, "I am not giving you the exact words but it is really the equivalent of intention." Of course it is not the equivalent of intention. If the learned Solicitor-General has advised him that it is, then I am even more staggered than by any other proceedings under this Bill.
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), in a very helpful and temperate interruption of my hon. and learned Friend, said that there are difficulties about the question of intention and proof. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here because I wanted to answer his point, and because he expressed a complimentary view towards lawyers who made their points clear. Lord Bowen, some years ago, made his point clear by saying that the state of a man's mind, which is intention, is just as much a matter of fact as the state of his digestion, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Reading would find much difficulty in trusting the state of his own or anybody else's digestion now or at any other time.
The same applies to the question of intention to evade. Of all the injustices that are done to lawyers, the greatest is the layman's assumption that there is difficulty in deciding a question of fact. Anyone who has any experience in the law and, I quite respectfully suggest, in life, would know that it is a matter not of difficulty but of common sense to decide it someone has decided to deliberately evade, or whether he has simply misjudged the matter. The Minister has obviously not considered this matter or he would not have used the two phrases as being synonymous, as he did in his speech. Therefore, let me, in the last moments at my disposal, put this to him: If that is the position in which he was when he made his speech, well, he knows the difference now.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has read lines 5 to 12 on page 11. All this is set out there.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think that that one will do. The right hon. Gentleman gave us his paraphrase of the Clause which we are dealing with. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is the last person to give any paraphrase to the House which he did not honestly believe


was the meaning of the Bill. If he honestly believed that was the meaning of the Bill, he honestly believed something entirely incorrect, and it is time for him to consider it.
The other point which I put to him is: Why does he need to maintain the disjunctive "or" between these two tests. On everything that he has said it would be sufficient, even with his misunderstanding, and even with his desire to have a more harsh content of the Bill,

to maintain the second or to put the two things conjunctively so that the second becomes a condition. I do ask the House to consider—

It being Ten o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words 'on or' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 322; Noes, 155.

Division No. 114.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hoy, J.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Dobbie, W
Hubbard, T.


Albu, A. H.
Dodds, N. N
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Allen, A. G. (Bosworth)
Donovan, T.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Alpass, J. H.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Attewell, H. C.
Dye, S.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Austin, H. Lewis
Edelman, M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Janner, B.


Aytes, W. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Jay, D. P. T.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Bacon, Miss A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Jeger, Or. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Baird, J.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Jenkins, R. H.


Balfour, A.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Jones, 0. T. (Hartlepool)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Barstow, P. G.
Ewart, R.
Jones, Jack (Bolton)


Barton, G.
Fairhurst, F.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Battley, J. R.
Farthing, W. J.
Keenan, W.


Bechervaise, A. E
Fernyhough, E.
Kenyon, C.


Benson, G.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Beswick, F.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
King, E M.


Bing, G. H. C
Follick, M.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Binns, J.
Forman, J. C.
Kinley, J.


Blackburn, A. R
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.


Blenkinsop, A.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Lang, G.


Blyton, W. R.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lavers, S.


Boardman, H.
Gibbins, J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Gibson, C. W.
Leonard, W.


Braddock, Wks. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Gilzean, A.
Leslie, J. R.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Levy, B. W.


Bramall, E. A.
Gooch, E. G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Goodrich, H. E.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Brooks, T. J. (Bothwell)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Lindgren, G. S.


Brown, George (Belper)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Grey, C. F.
Logan, D. G.


Burden, T. W.
Grierson, E.
Longden, F.


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Lyne, A. W.


Callaghan, James
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
McAdam, W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
McAllister, G.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
McEntee, V. La T


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gunter, R. J
McGhee, H. G.


Cobb, F. A.
Guy, W. H.
McGovern, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mack, J. D.


Collick, P.
Hale, Leslie
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Collindridge, F
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Collins. V J.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
McLeavy, F.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Cooper, G.
Hardman, D. R.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'werl, N.W.)
Hardy, E. A.
Mainwaring, W. H


Cove, W. G.
Harrison, J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Crawley, A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Haworth, J.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Cullen, Mrs.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Daggar, G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Daines, P.
Herbison, Miss M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A


Dalton, Re Hon. H.
Hicks, G.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hobson, C. R.
Mayhew, C. P.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holman, P.
Messer, F.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Horabin, T. L.
Mikardo, Ian


Deer, G.
Houghton, A. L. N. D.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.




Mitchison, G. R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Tolley, L.


Monslow, W.
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Morgan, Dr. H. B
Rogers, G. H. R.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Morley, R.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Royle, C.
Vernon, Maj. W F


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Sargood, R.
Viant, S. P.


Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Lewisham E.)
Scollan, T
Walkden, E.


Mort, D. L.
Scott-Elliot, W
Walker, G. H.


Moyle, A.
Segal, Dr. S.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Murray, J. D.
Shackleton, E. A. A
Warbey, W. N.


Nally, W.
Sharp, Granville
Watkins, T. E.


Naylor, T. E.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Weitzman, D.


Nichol., Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
West, D. G.


O'Brien, T.
Simmons, C. J.
Wheatley, -Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Oldfield, W. H
Skeffington, A. M.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Oliver, G. H
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Orbach, M.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wigg, George


Paget, R. T.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wilkes, L.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)
Wilkins, W. A


Pargiter, G. A.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Parker, J.
Solley, L. J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Parkin, B. T.
Sorensen, R. W
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Sparks, J. A
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Pearson, A.
Steele, T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Peart, T. F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Perrins, W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Popplewell, E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R (Lamoeth)
Willis, E


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Swingler, S.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H


Pritt, D. N.
Sylvester, G. O.
Wise, Major F. J.


Proctor, W. T.
Symonds, A. L.
Woods, G. S


Pryde, D. J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wyatt, W.


Pursey, Comdr. H
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Yates, V. F.


Randall. H. E.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Ranger, J.
Thomas, D. E. (.Aberdare)
Younger., Hon. Kenneth


Rankin, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Zilliacus, K.


Reeves, J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)



Raid, T. (Swindon)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rhodes, H.
Thurtle, Ernest
Mr. Snow and


Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Timmons, J.
Mr. George Wallace.


Robens, A.
Titterington, M F.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E L
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Foster, J G. (Northwich)
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H


Astor, Hon. M.
Fox, Sir G.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fraser, H. C. P (Stone)
Lancaster, Col. C. G


Beamish, Maj. T. V H
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Langford-Holt, J.


Bennett, Sir P.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P M
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K


Birch, Nigel
Gage, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Bossom, A. C.
Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Bower, N.
Galbraith, T. G. D (Hillhead)
Linstead, H. N.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Lipson, D. L.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Glyn, Sir R.
Low, A. R. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Butcher, H. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Lucas-Tooth, S. H.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A (S'ffr'n W'Id'n)
Hannon Sir P. (Moseley)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Challen, C.
Harden, J. R. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Harvey, Air-Comdre A V
McFarlane, C. S.


Cole, T L.
Houghton, S. G
Mackeson, Brig. H. R


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Head, Brige, A. H.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F C
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir C
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Davidson, Viscountess
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


De la Bere, R.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Maitland, Comdr. J W


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hollis, M. C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)
Harples, A. E.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Hope, Lord J.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Drayson, G. B
Howard, Hon. A
Maude, J. C.


Drewe, C.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R S. (Southport)
Medlicott, Brigadier F


Dugdale, Mai. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J.
Mellor, Sir J.


Eccles, D. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Molson, A. H. E.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A,
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Erroll. F. J.
Jennings, R
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.







Neven-Spence, Sir B
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Vane, W. M. F


Nicholson, G.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Wadsworth, G


Nield, B. (Chester)
Smithers, Sir W
Walker-Smith, D


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Snadden, W. M
Ward, Hon G. R


Odey, G. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset. E)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
White, Sir D (Fareham)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Sutcliffe, H.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'en. S.)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Pickthorn, K.
Teeling, William
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ramsay, Maj. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
York, C.


Renton, D.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F



Robinson, Roland (Blackpool. S.)
Touche, G. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ropner, Col. L.
Turton, R. H.
Mr. Studholme and


Shephard, S. (Newark)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Major Conant.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Ten o'Clock at this day's sitting.

Clause 14.—(EFFECT OF ACT ON CERTAIN LOAN AND OTHER AGREEMENTS.)

Amendment made, in page 13, line 2, leave out "publicly-owned company." and insert:
 company which comes into public ownership under this Part of this Act."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Snow.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) to be further considered Tomorrow.

GAS (SPECIAL ORDERS)

Resolved:
That the Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power, under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Morecambe and Heysham, which was presented on 22nd March and published, be approved.

Resolved:
 That the Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power, under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Alford Gas Company, which was presented on 17th March and published, be approved.

Resolved:
 That the Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power, under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Royal Burgh of Kirkcaldy, which was presented on 22nd March and published, be approved."—[Mr. Robens.]

SOFT DRINKS (SUGAR ALLOCATION)

Motion made, and Question proposd, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

10.12 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Holderness): The transition of the House from steel to sugar will, I hope, prove succulent and soothing, as will, I trust, the reply forthcoming from the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food to the very reasonable requests which I am now to submit to her. I invite the attention of the House and of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that the observations which I make are not condemnatory but are exploratory.
The story commences during the short Session which was held in September last. On 14th of that month, during the Adjournment Debate, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) raised the question of the shortage of sugar in mineral waters, particularly in regard to the export trade, which would suffer if the standard did not improve, and thereby reduce our dollar earnings. He was anxious to bring the matter to the notice of the Ministry of Food and the President of the Board of Trade, as he had just received a letter on the subject from a constituent in the mineral water industry. No reply was forthcoming upon that occasion.
During the Debate on the Gracious Speech which opened the present Session, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food intervened in order to announce to the House certain increases in sugar allocation. He stated that an extra quantity had been bought, and among the


industries to which he said he intended to make an increased allocation were included biscuits, golden syrup, cakes, coffee essence, corn flakes and table jellies. He went on to add that it was intended to complete the de-rationing of jam, to increase the sweet ration—of course we know the sequel to that—and to increase the domestic sugar ration from 8 oz. to 10 oz. As the right hon. Gentleman was resuming his seat at the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. T. J. Brooks) asked this question:
Is my right hon. Friend trying to do anything for the soft drinks industry?
to which the Minister replied:
 Yes, but it will be very little."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 612.]
Of course, "very little" is difficult of definition, but at least it must mean something. A few days later, on 12th November, I put down a Question to the right hon. Gentleman asking him:
What increased allocation of sugar will be made to the soft drinks industry consequent upon the changes announced on 1st November?
To this the Minister replied:
As the soft drinks industry were not subjected to the 25 per cent, cut in sugar allocations which took effect on 4th January, 1948, for other sugar using manufacturers, I regret I cannot agree to their participating in the increase recently granted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 213.]
That meant they would get nothing. That was a contrary expression of view by the Minister in charge of the Department within a period of 12 days. Early this year, in an attempt to find out what was really in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, I again put down a Question asking:
What allocation of sugar he has in contemplation for the soft drinks industry during 1949?
To this the Minister made the illuminating reply:
This will depend upon the amount of sugar available"—
which at least displayed a firm grasp of the obvious which is not often forthcoming from that Ministry. I asked a supplementary question:
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he intends that this industry shall participate in any future increased distribution which he is able to make?

To which the Minister replied:
I cannot commit myself about future Increased distriblItions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 781–2.]
There was then a supplementary question from the benches opposite on the subject of the domestic ration which I need not read.
1 now come to the Debate on the Adjournment on 18th March this year instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) who brought up the question of sugar supplies in general, demanded increased distribution and addressed himself to the whole question of the possible total de-rationing of this product. On this occasion it was the right hon. Lady who replied, as she invariably seems to have to do whenever there is an Adjournment Debate on these matters. She said that my hon. Friend was right and that there was plenty of sugar in the world but that we could not afford the dollars to buy it. Then came an interruption from my hon. Friend suggesting that non-dollar areas possessed great supplies, and she said that all available supplies from the Commonwealth and soft currency countries were bought by her Department. She might have added that another of her difficulties has been Treasury resistance to the finding of the cost-of-living subsidies which an increased distribution of sugar would entail. During that discussion my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Colonel Haughton) asked for a fresh review of the situation in which the high grade mineral water manufacturers found themselves today, to which the right hon. Lady replied:
Yes, we will look at the position of the manufacturers again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2563]
That is where we are now. I now desire to appeal to the right hon. Lady about the position of the industry at this moment. May I add that there has been delay in bringing this matter on, because I have been balloting since 14th February and we are now nearly in May. The industry is befogged and bewildered. With a few exceptions, such as soda water, sugar is the essential ingredient in all soft drinks. They are classed as food and fall under the jurisdiction of the right hon. Lady's Ministry, which recognises the full value of sugar. The importance of the industry was recognised


by the Government during the war when vital factory space was allocated to the production of soft drinks.
The industry is now attempting to supply 150 per cent. of the datum period —1938–39—demand with only 62½ per cent. of the datum period sugar allocation, so that the public is only getting 50 per cent. of the sugar content as compared with the pre-war standard. This drastic reduction is not in keeping with the Ministry's declared intention of raising the quality of foodstuffs wherever practicable. I add these figures for the benefit of hon. Members. Compared with the datum period consumption of 125 million gallons of drinkable liquid per annum in this country, production was raised to some 170 million gallons during 1947, and today consumption is running at the rate of approximately 200 million gallons, which places the industry in this dilemma. Anxious as they are to meet public demand, they are unwilling to increase quantity at the expense of quality.
Now, Sir, we are entering the summer months. The position will be particularly difficult if we are in for a hot summer. I have been in touch today with the secretary of the Soft Drinks Association to ask how they fared, as far as demand is concerned, during the abnormally hot and pleasant Easter holiday from which the House has just returned. He told me that a manufacturer in Southend, a popular resort, and one or two manufacturers in London have already stated that, as far as they are concerned, the Easter sales of soft drinks this year have established an all-time record for this particular ticular holiday and that if this abnormal weather continues for a few weeks, then at the end of three months they will have used up the whole of their sugar allocation and there will be none left to cope with the August and September holidaymakers and, may I add, with the agricultural workers during harvest time—and they are very considerable consumers of these beverages.
Furthermore, we have to consider the tourist traffic. We are very anxious to earn dollars by attracting tourists from the American continent. There are large numbers of visitors expected from the United States and Canada, where soft drinks standards are naturally higher than our own at the present time. There

is an analogy, if I may suggest it to the right hon. Lady, between these anticipated visitors, who can help us with their dollars, and the American and Canadian Service men who were stationed in our country during the war helping in a very different task. It was made quite clear to the authorities at that time that these Service men from the other side of the Atlantic would not be content with the standard British product and, accordingly the Ministry of Food of that day arranged for a special, extra allocation of sugar for them and they were supplied with a super-standard product.
The special position of this industry, having suffered five years of rigid concentration, with over 300 factories totally closed, and the phenomenal increase in public demand for its products, surely warrants a substantial increase in its sugar allocation at the earliest moment. Since de-control in February last year, the Minister has on more than one occasion expressed himself satisfied that there has been no unreasonable increase in prices charged to the public. The plea I want to make to the right hon. Lady is this—and I hope I am leaving her sufficient time to give a comprehensive and satisfactory reply. Can she not give us some indication now, at the beginning of the summer season, of what the 1949 allocation is likely to be so that manufacturers will be able to make plans in time to meet the summer rush?
As I indicated at the commencement of my remarks, great confusion was caused by the contradictory statements of her right hon. Friend in November last. That was the beginning of the trouble, contradiction causing uncertainty. With the situation as it is now, with the right hon. Lady's well-known sympathy for the rising generation, who are very large consumers of the various mineral waters, and with the prospect and possibility of a very hot summer, may I appeal to her to go to the Box tonight and give a helpful and, as I have suggested, a soothing and sympathetic answer in time for these manufacturers to meet what we all hope will be a warm and pleasant summer.

10.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): After that most attractive peroration of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Com-


mander Braithwaite) I should like to do as he suggests. He represents a constituency in which, no doubt, the soft drinks industry is represented, but he must remember that he also represents other industries which are using sugar—for example, the confectionery industry. Nor must he forget that he represents the housewives, who also want to have their domestic ration increased. We as a responsible Department must look at the demands not only of industry, but of the domestic consumer, and we have to weigh the needs of each industry.
I know this industry very well, and I know many of the men who are responsible for producing soft drinks, and I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right when he says that they are in a confused state. He must know enough about my Department to know, as I have said before, that our door is always open; the trade is always using it, and every commodity division sees to it that the trade is kept informed of the position. I think I will be able to prove to the House that, far from the soft drinks industry being treated in a niggardly manner by my Department, we are being not ungenerous to them in relation to the amount of sugar received by other industries.
It could be argued that the soft drinks industry is not a necessity, but we do not take that view. We recognise that soft drinks add variety to the diet, and therefore, we have made them an allocation which, I think, the House will agree is not ungenerous. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned the 62½ per cent. of datum usage. I want him to compare that with our present allocation to the cake and flour confectionery industry which, I think—and I believe every woman in the country would agree with me—makes an even more important contribution to the diet. It is getting only 55 per cent. of datum usage, against the 62½ per cent. for soft drinks. The ice cream industry, which, I agree, is not so important to the housewife as cake and flour confectionery, is getting 57½ per cent.
I agree that during the war the allocation to the soft drinks industry was cut down, just as supplies of other goods which were short were cut down to other industries. But I want to show the hon. and gallant Gentleman how the allocation has gradually increased, in order that he

may rest assured that this industry is well in our minds. In 1940 they had 40 per cent. of their datum usage of sugar. For 1942 to 1946 they were cut down—drastically, I agree—to 20 per cent., but in 1946–47 we increased the allocation to 40 per cent. In 1947–48 we increased it to 50 per cent. and in February, 1948, to 62½ per cent. This shows that when this and other industries come and make representations to us we consider them and try to allocate as fairly as possible.
It must be borne in mind also that the soft drinks industry qualifies for replacements of sugar, in cases where sugar is used in meeting the priority demands of N.A.A.F.I. and so on. If we include that, the soft drinks industry is geting 65 per cent. of the actual pre-war usage. Again, as I have already said, that compares with the figure for the sugar and flour confectionery industry of only 55 per cent.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Has there been the same abnormal increase in the demand for confectionery as there has been for soft drinks?

Dr. Summerskill: I think Members of the House have only to ask their wives whether they want extra cakes and whether they find it easy to get cakes of the quality they would like. Probably every town in the country would like extra cakes of a higher quality, of a higher sugar and fat content. We do not deny that, but we have had to allocate our scarce supplies throughout the country. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would like to know the exact figures. The total tonnage of sugar used by the industry in 1947 was 27,238 tons; in 1948, 32,329 tons; and the estimate for this year, 1949, 32,500 tons.
It was decided in 1947, as I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned to deconcentrate the soft drinks industry. It was agreed that the Minister would see that the allowance on deconcentration did not drop below 30,000 tons of sugar, and that de-concentration would take place on 1st February, 1948. In January, 1948, a month before, we had to announce to all manufacturers of commodities which contained sugar as an ingredient that we would have to impose a 25 per cent. cut. But we had already pledged ourselves in 1947 to the soft


drinks industry that we would keep their allocation at 30,000 tons. The two positions could not be reconciled. So we said to the soft drinks industry, "Though we are cutting every other manufacturer in the country, we will keep our pledge. You can carry on and deconcentrate and we will fix your sugar allowance at 62½ per cent."
I think the House will agree that my Department showed good faith in this matter. It would have been entirely wrong to promise to deconcentrate this industry and then change our minds in a few months, after these men, who have built up businesses respected throughout the country and whose names have become household words, had made their arrangements for deconcentration. We kept our promise; but later on in the year when it came to considering giving a little additional sugar to the people whose allocation we had cut by 25 per cent., surely we were right in saying to the soft drinks industry, "We kept our promise and did not cut your allocation. We cannot give you this extra now." That is the position, and I think I can justify it at this Box. I think that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman, whom I have always regarded as a fair-minded opponent, were doing this job, he would have acted in exactly the same way.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The hon. Lady's right hon. Friend said that he was going to do something and he said that on 1st November. That is the trouble.

Dr. Summerskill: We were, of course, reviewing all the industries which used sugar. If a sudden supplementary shot was fired at my right hon. Friend, who had it in his mind that we were reviewing these industries, I do not think he was guilty of a colossal error when he said he was looking at it. Actually, we had looked at it. If we had felt there would be so much sugar available, we might have granted the industry something; but I do not think the House can charge my right hon. Friend with treating the industry unfairly in view of the past history of this question.
In February, 1949, the industry came to us and asked for a substantial increase. The House will agree that it would have been a substantial increase when I say that it came to about the level of 95per cent.

of datum usage Surely the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness, in the light of other allocations, would not ask that my Department should give the soft drinks industry 95 per cent. of its datum usage. That was in February. The Council of the Soft Drinks Industry stated its intention of increasing the nutritional content of soft drinks, but we were of the opinion, and I believe rightly, that possibly cake and flour confectionery had a greater claim in this respect.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned the Debate on sugar which was raised on the Adjournment by the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère). I went to great trouble to give the hon. Member details, but hon. Members on both sides will agree that it is very difficult to satisfy the hon. Gentleman the Member for Evesham. I gave him the details of our domestic sugar consumption, the manufacturing consumption and of the supply and demand position, and said that unfortunately the supply did not yet meet the demand. I do not want to weary the House with those figures, but if the hon. and gallant Member will look up the Adjournment Debate, he will be assured once more that we have not a big stock of sugar which we are not producing and are keeping aside for some purpose of our own.
Can it be argued that this industry is suffering because it is not producing a gallonage sufficient to give it a reasonable profit? I think that the hon. and gallant Member could not argue that. What are the figures? The total production of soft drinks pre-war was estimated at 125 million gallons expressed as ready-to-drink beverages. The House will realise that one has, of course carbonated soft drinks and squashes. Expressed as ready-to-drink beverages, 125 million gallons was the total production, and 147 million gallons was taken as the target for the industry's production under the concentration scheme. We recognised that target in our allocations.
What we did amounted to guaranteeing 147 million gallons during concentration. I would like to give the House these figures because I think hon. Members will agree that the soft drinks industry has not suffered overmuch during the war so far as gallonage is concerned. In 1944, production was 133 million gallons; in 1945, it was 144 million gallons; in 1946, it was 152 million gallons; and in 1947.


it was 156 million and in 1948, it was 173 million gallons. In the following year, the first year of deconcentration, the production is estimated at the rate of 200 million gallons. I do not think the hon. Member can say that the industry is suffering.
I know that the industry would like to increase the sugar content. Consumers also would like to have more sugar in all foods. No one can argue, however, that this particular industry has been unfairly treated. I will give two figures which I think are relevant so far as imports and home consumption are concerned. We allocate 2,035,000 tons of sugar a year. Estimated supplies in that period are 2,063,000 tons. This leaves us with only a small safety margin.
This is the sugary word which the hon. Gentleman asked for, and which we have given to the industry. The industry asked for 95 per cent. of the datum period consumption of sugar in February. We had to refuse, but we did say that its needs, together with those of other manufacturers, were in our minds. We have invited them to come to see us in a few months. I cannot promise more, but I must leave the hon. and gallant Gentle-

man and hon. Members with these figures in their minds. If they will read them and carefully consider them, they will appreciate that the soft drinks industry is not being ungenerously treated.

Lord John Hope: I think the right hon. Lady suggested that my hon. and gallant Friend had said that the Minister had been guilty of treason towards the industry.

Dr. Summerskill: I do not think used the word "treason." I think I said he suggested that the Minister had been ungenerous.

Lord John Hope: I think the right hon. Lady was saying that it was not reasonable on our part to accuse the Minister of something serious towards the industry. All that my hon. Friend was accusing the Minister of was a breach of a specific undertaking and in all the right hon. Lady has said she has not been able to acquit him of that charge.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.